Letter 3 — Errors in God’s Word?
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White
Friday, June 8th
Dear Elder Hahn,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I have to note in passing that your letter did not directly respond to much that I said before in regard to the Bible’s claims concerning itself. That is not really unusual, but I feel that it should be pointed out to you that providing a list of supposed “contradictions” is not the same as dealing with the direct claims of Scripture. Your approach, instead, is to deny the teachings of the Bible by providing examples of alleged errors that would, by their presence, disprove the words of Scripture. I hope you will consider further the Bible’s own teachings about itself.
The list of “contradictions” you have provided to me is a common one — at times I think that this list, or one very similar to it, is a part of the “missionary training packet“ that is passed out to every new missionary before being sent out into the field. I say that because of the fact that these same passages keep coming up over and over again as I speak with representatives of the LDS Church. In fact, the very first time anyone at all attempted to prove to me that the Bible was contradictory to itself was when I met with my first pair of Mormon missionaries — and, interestingly enough, the passage they threw at me was the first one you listed in your letter.
Before I address these particular passages, I would like to point something out to you, Elder Hahn. Have you ever thought about the fact that you have to join hands with atheists and other enemies of the Christian faith in your attacks upon the Bible I have spoken with, and corresponded with, many, many atheists over the past few years, and the supposed “contradictions“ they speak about are the same as those you have provided to me. Surely your reasons are a little different than theirs, but, in the final analysis, may I suggest to you that you have to attack the validity and accuracy of the Bible in order to find a way to establish your “other” scriptures. If the Bible is what it claims, the inspired, sufficient revelation of God, then there is no need for any other writings, including yours. Not only this, but I believe the attacks made upon the accuracy of the Bible by the LDS Church are necessary so that the clear and evident contradictions between the teaching of the Bible and LDS theology can be dismissed with as little difficulty as possible. Hopefully, we shall be able to get into those particular Biblical teachings in a short time.
Your list of “contradictions” in the Bible is actually very well suited for my purposes, in that the passages you cite provide me with good examples of various kinds of errors made by those who attack the accuracy of God’s Word. (I’m sorry if that description offends you, but, you must admit it is an accurate representation.) Let’s look at the passages you listed:
Acts 9:7 / Acts 22:9, and the alleged discrepancies in the story of Paul’s meeting Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. This seems to be the “classic example” of a contradiction for many LDS, and it provides me with a good example of how people fail to “do their homework” when reading the Bible. We shall spend most of our time here.
- Matthew 27:9-10 / Zechariah 11:12-13, and Matthew’s citation of the prophecy of Zechariah as being the prophecy of Jeremiah.
- Matthew 27:45 / Mark 15:25 / Luke 23:44 / John 19:14, and the time of the Lord’s death on the cross. Was He crucified at the “third hour” and died in the “ninth hour” as Matthew, Mark and Luke indicate, or is John right in giving a different time
- Matthew 4:18-20 / John 1:40-42, and whether Andrew went and got Peter, or did Jesus just call them from their nets by the seashore.
- Mark 6:8 / Luke 9:3, and the question, were the disciples to take a staff on their journey or not
I am sure that you could multiply your examples, as I surely could. I have reams of lists of supposed contradictions in the Bible. But those you have provided to me will function well to help us see the various kinds of allegations that are made against the Bible. Let’s start with the first, and seemingly most popular of them all, Acts 9:7 and 22:9. In these two passages the story of Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord Jesus Christ is given, first by Luke, then in Paul’s own words as he stands before the mob in Jerusalem. In the King James Version of the Bible we read,
Acts 9:7 — And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 — And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him who that spoke to me.
The alleged contradiction is, of course, easy to see. Acts 9:7 says the men heard the voice and Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice. Clearly, the question is, did the men hear the voice or not? To answer that question, we must, obviously, deal with the text as written by Luke in its original languages. This is an excellent example of a situation where the original words must be allowed to be heard in the argument, for we could be charging Luke with a simple mistake that he did not make. These passages will also serve well, Elder Hahn, to demonstrate how “doing one’s homework” can save one from making errors in attacking the Bible. In providing the following information to you, I am not attempting simply to “bury” you under a mountain of citations and quotes; I am, however, attempting to show you how important in-depth Bible study is. A very precious few are those who have objected to my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible who have demonstrated their position on the basis of real, solid research.
We need to notice that some modern versions translate the passage differently. For example, the New International Version reads as follows:
9:7 — The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
22:9 — My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
Note that in the NIV the contradiction no longer exists; in the first passage the men hear a sound; in the second they do not understand the voice of the one speaking to Saul. Critics would assert that the NIV has translated in accordance with interpretation and convenience rather thin according to language and usage. But is this so? Let’s examine these passages and see.
First, before going into the text itself, we must address the issue of “what is a contradiction.” The law of contradiction, stated briefly, would be that you cannot have A and non-A simultaneously. You cannot have a chair in a room and outside the room at the same time. That would be a contradiction. But, is this what we have in this case in Acts?
The answer can only be no, we do not have a contradiction here. First, let’s transliterate the passages from the original language of Greek so that their differences can be seen:
9:7 – akouontes men tes phones; 22:9 – ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi
It would be good to list the differences between the passages:
1. In 9:7 akouo is found as a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb.
2. In 9:7 phone is a singular genitive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun.
3. In 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object.
4. In 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by “of the one speaking to me.”
5. In 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
Clearly, the critic is placed in an impossible position of forcing the argument here, for the differences between the two passages are quite significant. Hence the argument must proceed on the grounds of contradictory meanings only, for the grammar of the two passages will not support a clear “A vs. non-A” proposition.
We then must answer the question, are the differences between these passages significant enough to warrant the NIV’s translation? Do we have a solid basis upon which to assert that what Paul meant was that the men heard a sound but did not understand what the voice was saying? I believe we do, and I am not alone on this. Following are some of the comments made by some eminent Greek scholars about these passages:
Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case I i.e., hearing (something) off, whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived.” (Cremer). In John 5:25,28, the genitive case is used, indicating a “sensational perception” that the Lord’s voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind, the accusative is used, stressing “the thing perceived.” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine, pages 204-205).
Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phoneas in John 13:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard the sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9). However, this distinction in case with akouo, phonenekousa phonen about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides, in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ekousa phonen about himself, but ekousa phonen about himself in 26:14, interchangeably. (Word Pictures in the New Testament by Dr. A.T. Robertson, volume III, pages 117-118).
The fact that the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with akouo saves the author of Acts 9 and 22 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be enough to make us recognize it for Luke, and for other writers until it is proved wrong. (A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, vol. I., page 66. Robertson quotes this approvingly in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research on pages448-449).
The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of perception, especially with a personal object. For akouo, the classical rule is that the person whose words are heard is in the gen. . . . but the thing (or person) about which one hears is in the accus., and akouo c. accus. may mean to understand. We have to ask whether the class. distinction between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis in NT. There may he something in the difference between the gen. in Acts 9 (the men with Paul heard the sound and the accus. in Acts 22 (they did not understand the voice). (A Grammar of New Testament Greek vol. III by Nigel Turner, pg. 233).
Basically, these writers are referring to the possibility that the difference in the case of the term akouo would in this instance (9:7, 22:9) point to a difference in meaning. However, as Dr. A. T. Robertson said above, this distinction cannot be written in stone. Why then do we feel that we are correct in asserting this difference as the “answer” to this supposed contradiction. Context, Elder Hahn, context. Though none of the above authors went deeply into the subject, an examination of the context of the passages in question here makes it very clear that Luke meant a difference to be understood in what he was writing.
The key element in this investigation is pointed out by R.J. Knowling (Expositor’s Greek Testament vol. 2 ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll, pages 231-233) and by John Aberly (New Testament Commentary edited by H. C. Alleman, page 414). In Acts 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem. According to Acts 21:40 Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew (NIV says Aramaic — exactly which dialect it was is not very relevant). He mentions to his Hebrew listeners that when Jesus called him, he called him in their own language — Hebrew. How do we know this In both Acts 9:4 and in Acts 22:7 Saul is not spelled in its normal form, but is spelled in its Hebrew (or Aramaic) form Saoul. What does this tell us? It tells us that the “voice” spoke in Hebrew. Therefore, Acts 22:9 would be referring to the fact that the men who accompanied Paul did not understand what was said for they could not understand Hebrew! The text supports this very strongly, for Paul modifies his saying “they did not hear (understand) the voice” by adding the vital phrase, “of the one speaking to me (tou lalountos moi).” The emphasis is on the speaking of the voice, which would indicate comprehension and understanding. Now, given the above scholars’ quotations, and the context of the passages, can anyone seriously deny that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for this supposed contradiction? I think not.
Finally, it must be stated that part and parcel of dealing with almost any ancient or even modern writing is the basic idea that the author gets the benefit of the doubt. It is highly unlikely that a writer will contradict himself within short spans of time or space. Luke was a careful historian, and it is sheer speculation that he would be so forgetful as to forget what he wrote in Acts 9 by the time he wrote Acts 22. Some critics of the Bible seem to forget the old axiom “innocent until proven guilty.” The person who will not allow for the harmonization of the text (as we did above) is in effect claiming omniscience of all the facts surrounding an event that took place nearly two millennia ago. Most careful scholars do not make such claims. The above presented explanation is perfectly reasonable, it coincides with the known facts, and does not engage in unwarranted “special pleading.” If you wish to continue to claim that Acts 9:7 contradicts Acts 22:9, Elder Hahn, there is little I or anyone else can do about that. But realize that (1) your position cannot be proven; (2) you are operating on unproven assumptions (Luke was not intelligent enough to notice a contradiction in his own writing); and (3) there is a perfectly logical explanation, based on the original languages and contexts.
I hope that you do not mind, Elder, that I took a good bit of time and space to answer the first of your alleged contradictions. I do hope that if you desire to do so, you will look into the sources I cited and discover the truth for yourself. I want you to see, however, that attacking the accuracy of the Bible on the basis of our own misunderstanding of a translated text1In the case of the question you have raised, the problem is more a matter of translation. Unfortunately the translators of the King James Version did not take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear” and “understand.” Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound” and “voice.” (i.e., our understanding of the English translation) is not a wise, nor correct, procedure. The King James Version’s translation is not a mistranslation in and of itself; if we wish to ask “what does it mean to ‘hear’ a voice” then we need to ask that question of the original text as well as the translated one.
At this point, in the past, I have had many LDS say, “Hey, you are getting real complicated here, and I think you are just trying to hide something. You don’t need to know all this Greek stuff — the Apostles were simple men who were unlearned and untrained.” While the Apostles (with the notable exception of Paul) may have been unlearned and untrained, that has little if anything to do with the current topic, that being supposed errors in the Bible. Unlearned and untaught men can receive great truth from God. But they are also unlikely candidates to be attacking the veracity and accuracy of God’s revelation as well. You won’t find the Apostles doing that! So, when others, such as yourself, Elder Hahn, come against the Scriptures and accuse them of error, that is far different than an untrained, unlearned, humble man receiving grace and knowledge from God. You must demonstrate that you have truly examined the issues, and done your homework, before making allegations such as these. The issues we must deal with — Greek, Hebrew, translation, transmission, history, grammar — all of these, are “scholarly” issues, requiring study and work.
Let’s move on to your other “contradictions.” The next on your list was Matthew 27:9-10 in comparison with Zechariah 11:12-13. Matthew writes, into one statement about the Lord Jesus. Since Jeremiah is the “major” prophet, and Zechariah his “junior,” then the major prophet’s name is used. A similar thing happens in Mark 1:2-3, where prophecies from both Isaiah and Malachi are put together in one quotation. So, as we can see, there are at least two plausible explanations as to why Matthew would cite this passage the way that he did, and not be in “error” for having done so. Surely it can be said that it is not possible to prove that Matthew was in error and made such an obvious “mistake” for no purpose. Is there any particular reason why the Biblical writers should be given less credit for their knowledge of the Scriptures than a modern writer Why should we believe Matthew to be so ignorant of the Old Testament The idea that there was a purpose to his words is logical and rational.
Let’s look next at another issue that will again illustrate the accuracy of the Bible over against the charges made against it — that being your question concerning the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and death as given to us by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, seemingly in opposition to John. Mark 15:25 says, “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” Then, in Mark 15:33-34, we read,
And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, la’ma sabach’ thani?” which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
This same information is given by Matthew 27:45 and Luke 23:44. All three of the “Synoptic” gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) agree that Jesus was (1) crucified at the “third hour” and (2) that darkness was over the land from the sixth to the ninth hour, at which time the Lord Jesus gave up His spirit.
But, as you pointed out, John says in John 19:14, “And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!” Here Jesus is still before Pilate in the “sixth hour” while the Synoptic gospels are unanimous in saying that Jesus was on the cross at the sixth hour, at which time darkness came over the land. Is this not a clear error?
During the days of Christ there were two different systems of keeping time. The Jewish system began at sunrise and went to sunset. For them, the day would begin about 6 A.M., and the “sixth hour” would be high noon, the ninth hour about 3 P.M. The Romans, however, did not reckon time in this way. Rather, they followed a system more like our own, where the times started at midnight and at noon. For them the “sixth hour” would be 6 A.M. in the morning or 6 P.M. in the evening, depending on whether you are speaking of daytime or nighttime.
It seems very clear that the Synoptic gospels are using Jewish time in their recording of the events of the crucifixion. Therefore, they record that Jesus was crucified at the “third hour” which would be 9 in the morning. Darkness was over the land from the sixth to the ninth hours, corresponding to noon till 3 P.M., at which time the Lord Jesus gave up His spirit.
John, on the other hand, is not using the Jewish reckoning of time. He is not writing to Jews, and, in fact, most probably wrote this Gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and therefore would have no reason to use that system of time-keeping. Tradition states that John lived in Ephesus, which would have used the Roman system of time-keeping. When this difference is taken into consideration, John is “right on time” with his figures. He says that Jesus was before Pilate during the “sixth hour,” which, in Roman thinking, would be around 6 A.M. This is perfectly in line with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for they say He was crucified three hours later, at 9 A.M. So, we see again, that there is no error here — the only error is made by those who fail to allow the writers the freedom of expressing themselves differently; here, John using a different time system than was used by the other writers.
The next example you provided, Elder Hahn, I feel shows clearly how unwilling most critics of the Bible are to allow the authors to tell their story in their own way, without necessarily being in “error” in what they say. The assumption of error on the part of the modern reader is far too quickly made. You brought up Matthew 4:18-20 which speaks of Jesus calling Peter and Andrew to follow Him. They immediately leave their nets and follow Him. Then, you cite John 1:40-42 and the fact that here Andrew, being a disciple of John the Baptist, went and found his brother Peter and said “we have found the Messiah!” You asked, “Which account is true?” I say, both are! See, you don’t have to take one to the exclusion of the other, as long as you don’t make one very big assumption — that the encounter of Jesus with Peter and Andrew on the beach was the first time they had ever met. What is wrong with allowing for harmony here, and understanding it as follows. Andrew is a follower of John the Baptist. He goes and gets his brother Peter, and he meets Jesus. Then a period of time elapses — whether Peter and Andrew are with Jesus during the whole of this period of time or not is difficult to say — but at some point Peter and Andrew are back at their business, that of fishing. Jesus comes along and calls them away permanently from their work, calling them to the life of a full-time disciple, and, later, of an apostle. Dr. A.T. Robertson, in his work, A Harmony of the Gospels, separates the original meeting of Jesus with Andrew and Peter and the eventual calling of them by the seashore with quite an amount of material (see pages 23-33 of his work).
Had it ever caused you to wonder, even a little, why Peter and Andrew would just drop their nets, leave their families and businesses, and walk off with a man they had never even met before If the incident of Matthew 4:18-20 was the first time they had ever met Jesus, that would indeed be strange. But, taking the whole of Scripture into account, we see that it is in full harmony with itself — this wasn’t the first time they had met. I might add in passing, Elder Hahn, that you are not alone in not doing your “homework” on this one — I’ve heard many a sermon preached about the “incredible faith” of Peter and Andrew who just dropped everything and followed Him without knowing a thing about Christ. Makes good preaching, but lousy theology, and bad Bible study!
Next, you brought up the seeming discrepancy between Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3. The passages read,
And [Jesus] commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse. (Mark 6:8)
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. (Luke 9:3)
Were they to take a staff (stave) or not It would be nearly impossible to resolve this situation if these were the only two passages that mention Jesus’ words. But, though I am sure it was not intentional on your part, Elder Hahn, you neglected to mention the third passage that gives us Jesus’ instructions to the disciples, that being Matthew 10:10:
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor a scrip [bag] for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Here we find an instance, Elder Hahn, where the provision of three witnesses to the same event shows us how, if we had but one or two, we would not have a full understanding of the real situation. If we had but Mark and Luke, it would be difficult to understand how this is not in error.
The Lord Jesus is sending his disciples out in ministry. Matthew gives the fullest account, and in doing so provides the obvious explanation as well. Jesus is instructing the disciples to go out with the barest of necessities, not looking to “provide” (Matthew 10:10) or to “acquire” (the translation given by the New American Standard Bible, and which best brings out the meaning of the original term) anything extra for the trip. When the Lord tells the disciples to not take “shoes” do we really think that He means that they are to go barefoot Of course not — rather, they are not to take an extra pair of shoes along. In the same way, if a disciple had a staff, he would not be prohibited from taking one along: but, if he did not, he was not to “acquire” one just for the journey — he was to go as he was.
So what we have in Luke and Mark is “part” of what we have in Matthew. Luke records the prohibition given against acquiring yet another staff, while Mark communicates the implicit permission to take along the staff that one already had. No actual contradiction is found to exist, but we are again impressed by the fact that we must allow for harmonization of the texts. What do I mean by this, Elder Hahn? What if we had only Luke and Mark, without Matthew’s additional information, and you attacked Luke and Mark, accusing either the authors of error, or someone later of making errors in copying (though, as I explained in my earlier letter, the original reading would be found no matter what happened during the period of copying) We can see how they are not contradicting each other, but are rather giving complementary information. In fact, one is referring to a prohibition of acquiring a new staff while the other is referring to one already owned. They are not even talking, specifically, about the same thing. Yet, without Matthew’s information, if I suggested this resolution of the difficulty, would you not be tempted to say, “Well, you are just pleading the case, and not really dealing with the text.” Are there not many other passages in the Gospels, and throughout the Bible, where we encounter similar situations? Is it not the wiser course to admit we don’t know all of the backgrounds and contexts, and to give the authors the benefit of the doubt? It would certainly seem so to me.
As you can see, Elder, each of the instances you have provided to me has a logical and rational explanation. As I mentioned, you could quite easily find many, many more alleged errors such as those above — but I hope you now realize that the vast majority of these allegations fall into the categories we saw above. When (1) the original languages are allowed to have their say, (2) the historical contexts are examined, (3) harmonization between different accounts of the same event is allowed, (4) the authors are recognized to be intelligent, cognizant beings who were not given to contradicting themselves in every other word, the vast majority of commonly presented “contradictions” are shown to be based more upon a desire to prove the Bible wrong than they are upon any defect in the Bible itself.
I realize that I have gone on quite long enough in this letter, and I apologize. But, there is one more item from your letter that I must address, that being your list of “missing books.“2What are the lost books of the Bible?
There are no “lost books” of the Bible, or books that were taken out of the Bible, or books missing from the Bible. Every book that God intended to be in the Bible is in the Bible. There are many legends and rumors of lost books of the Bible, but the books were not, in fact, lost. Rather, they were rejected. It was quite an impressive list! Let’s look at some of them you mentioned:
- Exodus 24:7 — ” the book of the covenant”
- Numbers 21:14 — “the book of the wars of the LORD”
- Joshua 10:13 — “the book of Jashar”
- l Kings 11:41 — “the book of the acts of Solomon”
- 1 Chronicles 29:29 — the chronicles of Samuel, Gad and Nathan
- 2 Chronicles 9:29 — records of Nathan the prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the seer
- 2 Chronicles 33:19 — records of the Hozai
- Colossians 4:16 — the letter to the Laodiceans
I know of a few others as well, but your list is fairly representative. Now, you wrote,
Clearly, these books have been lost from the Bible. How can you say the Bible is complete when all these books are missing Might they not teach things that are important This is why we need latter-day revelation to restore that which is missing in the Bible.
Aside from the fact that the Book of Mormon itself refers to records that are not contained in it (like the “prophecies of Zenos” mentioned in 1 Nephi 19:10 and elsewhere), I have to ask why every person who has made the allegation that the Bible is “missing books” thinks that the Bible cannot mention the existence of any other writing without making that writing a part of the canon of Scripture? Many of the books mentioned above were obviously secular in nature; that is, they were public or royal records. Why do you say these books were supposed to be part of Scripture? Why cannot the Bible even mention the existence of secular writings without making those writings part of the Scriptures? If the Bible were being written today, and the Bible was to mention, for example, a national newspaper, would that automatically make the newspaper part of Scripture? For example, let’s say that a prophet of God was attacked in an editorial written in a particular newspaper. The writer of Scripture mentions this. Does this mean that the newspaper becomes part of the inspired Word of God? If so, for what reason? So, when 1 Kings 11:41 mentions the “book of the acts of Solomon,” it would be similar to mentioning the Congressional Record or something of that kind. But why do you believe that these books were ever considered to be Scripture by the people of God?
Some of the books mentioned in the Bible were clearly of a religious nature, such as the records of Nathan the prophet or the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. But again, why believe that these were ever meant to be part of the Bible? The same example as used above is relevant here. If the Bible were being written today, and a particular religious leader was mentioned, and, rather than listing everything that this particular person did, the writer of Scripture were to say, “now, the rest that this person did is written in this book,” does that book automatically become inspired because the Scripture writer refers someone to it for further information, if they desire it? I don’t believe so, do you?
Finally, you mentioned the “epistle from Laodicea” in Colossians 4:16. Again, I see no reason to call this a “lost book” if God never intended it to be in the Bible in the first place. Surely, if God wishes a book to be in His Word, He can manage to get it there. But, in this particular instance, we probably do have this letter. Which one, you ask? Well, the book of Ephesians seems to have been written as a “circular letter” that was intended to be read in various churches in different places. Many Bible scholars feel that the letter we know as Ephesians is actually the same letter referred to in Colossians, and, if it is, then we do have the letter mentioned here.
Again, I apologize for the length of this letter, and I hope you will continue our conversation. Shall we move on to talk about the God of the Bible? I stand ready.
Sincerely,
James White
Return to Table of Contents –––> Next Chapter
Letters To A Mormon Elder is available on Amazon.