In my previous post on prophecies of Joseph Smith, I referenced an article that I helped, in part- research and write, The Bible vs. Joel Kramer. There is an interesting quote in this paper on the Old Testament’s use of itself:
[I]n Micah 3:12, the prophet predicts the inevitable downfall of Jerusalem. This passage provides the only unambiguous instance in the Hebrew Bible of a prophetic message being specifically referred to in another prophetic collection, for it is discussed in Jeremiah 26:18-19. Jerusalem, however, had not fallen; but this does not mean that Micah was dismissed or condemned as a false prophet on the grounds that his prophecy had not been fulfilled, as Kramer’s reading would require. Rather, the claim is made that Hezekiah’s repentance had led Yahweh to change his mind and spare the city, and such a claim cannot readily be refuted. With his commitment to biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, Kramer is certainly in no position to dispute it (Richard J. Coggins, “Prophecy—True and False,” in Of Prophets’ Visions andthe Wisdom of the Sages: Essays in Honor of R. Norman Wbyray on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 80-94).
There are some overwhelming difficulties for those who hold to the theory that the original texts of the Old and New Testament were inerrant (see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
As I wrote, as part of an exchange with anti-Mormon activist, Doug Harris:
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation settles the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches toHebrew Bible Textual Criticism (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Why is this significant? It shows that, applying the fundamentalist, all-or-nothing hermeneutic that you hold to, one must admit to accepting, as inerrant, a text (i.e., Acts 15), and a dogmatic decree therefrom (viz. circumcision not being a prerequisite for salvation and the entry of Gentiles into the New Covenant), notwithstanding it being a text that is dependent upon a faulty translation of Amos 9! So much for the fiction of inerrancy and your fundamentalist assumptions! Will you reject the New Testament as "another," that is, different/false testament? Will you conclude, being consistent in your approach to the Book of Mormon, that the God of the New Testament is not trustworthy and that God's word is nullified if one holds to the New Testament?