Here is the URL to a video by Dave Bartosiwicz, a former Latter-day Saint who converted to Evangelicalism:
Firstly, one cannot help but see that he assumes, without any biblical evidence, that "Word of God" is exhausted by Scripture. This is his (false and anti-biblical) a priori assumption of sola scriptura coming out rather explicitly (e.g., assuming that “scripture” is exhaustive of “the Word of God,” etc.)
Firstly, one cannot help but see that he assumes, without any biblical evidence, that "Word of God" is exhausted by Scripture. This is his (false and anti-biblical) a priori assumption of sola scriptura coming out rather explicitly (e.g., assuming that “scripture” is exhaustive of “the Word of God,” etc.)
Secondly, informed Evangelical scholars would not agree with him that scriptural texts being abridged/edited means it is not the inspired Word of God. This, of course, is related to another (false) a priori assumption he and other Protestants have about the nature of “Scripture,” viz. it is static, and can never change. However, the more intellectual honest Evangelical will admit that this is not the case. Note the following from Michael S. Heiser in his book, I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible (Lexham Press, 2014):
Believe it or not, there is evidence that the Bible was updated. That may sound strange, but if you read closely, it’s undeniable. Take Genesis 14:14 as an illustration:
When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men . . . and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
Did you notice the problem? This is the time of Abram, a time before Moses and Joshua—before there was a promised land divided among the tribes of Israel. There wasn’t even an Israel ye . . . If we plotted out the battle described in this verse on a map, with place names appropriate for Abram’s day, we’d see that the writer really meant that the enemy was pursued all the way to a place called Laish, not Dan . . . Evidently, an unnamed editor updated the text of Genesis 14:14 after the name change took place. The editor likely did this to make sure readers of his own day would understand the geography. (11-12).
Commenting on the propriety of such changes of the inspired text, Heiser comments thusly:
Who had the authority to edit the Bible like this? The short answer is whomever God moved to do so under inspiration. The longer answer is that, in the case of the prophetic writings, someone accepted by the believing community of Israel to be a member of the prophetic class or tradition served as editor of the preaching and teachings of the prophets. (ibid., 104).
Heiser is spot-on when he states that if and when a figure is inspired by God to make changes in their revelations or the revelations of previous prophets, such is appropriate and not a cause of concern.
This fits what Melvin J. Petersen wrote in "A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," Master's thesis, BYU, 1955, pp. 164-65:
Once a man has been recognized and accepted as a prophet and favored with communications from God, his great responsibility is to make sure, inasmuch as he has power to do so, that those to whom the communications are directed, understand what God has revealed for them. The power is his to revise, correct, omit, or change any of his writings in order that he might manifest more clearly what God revealed through him . . . A prophet cannot be justly criticized when he writes the commandments he received from God, for he is only doing that which is part of his role as a prophet.
There are many biblical examples of prophets revising their own writings and/or the writings of previous prophets. One well-known example is recorded in Jer 36:28-32. After the king burnt his original revelation, the Lord instructs the prophet in the following manner:
"Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the Lord says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and wipe from it both man and beast? Therefore this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost on the night. I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.'" So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe, Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. (NIV)
In this pericope, we learn that Jeremiah did not simply dictate the same revelation the king destroyed, but an expanded revelation.
Another example would be the two records of the Decalogue in Exo 20 and Deut 5. Oftentimes, there are differences, including the justifications for, and the wording of the commandments:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Exo 20:8)
Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. (Deut 5:12)
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, though, not thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. (Exo 20:10)
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, though, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor ay of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. (Deut 5:14)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exo 20:11)
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out of thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut 5:15)
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Exo 20:12)
Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Deut 5:16)
Other examples of prophets revising the inspired writings of previous prophets include Jer 52 (2 Kgs 24-25) and Isa 36-39 (2 Kgs 18-20) or reinterpreting earlier prophetic oracles in light of historical contingencies that interrupted their initially expected fulfilment (see the use of Micah 3:12 in Jer 26:18-19).
Much of Ezra/Nehemiah also shows evidence that it was later redacted/edited. For instance, consider, as one representative example, Neh 12:10-11:
Commenting on this passage, one conservative Evangelical scholar wrote the following:
Much of Ezra/Nehemiah also shows evidence that it was later redacted/edited. For instance, consider, as one representative example, Neh 12:10-11:
Jeshua begot Joiakim; Joiakim begot Eliashib; Eliashhin begot Joiada; Joiada begot Jonathan; Jonathan begot Jaddua. [1985 JPS Tanakh)
Commenting on this passage, one conservative Evangelical scholar wrote the following:
As pointed out in the exegesis, traces of editing of the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah are clearly visible, particularly in the genealogical material; e.g., in Neh 12:10-11 the high-priestly lineage is taken down to Jaddua, who lived in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. The switch from the first person in the memoir of Ezra to the third person also points to later editing . . . [Neh 12] 10-11 Here we have a list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, from 538 B.C. to well after 400 BC. Some want to regard Jaddua as a contemporary of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). One thing is certain, namely, that this list was compiled after the time of Nehemiah. Jeshua was the contemporary of Zerubbabel. We know nothing about Joiakim save that is said of him in this list and in vv. 12 and 26. Elishib was a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 3:1, 20, 21). We know nothing of Joiada except the notice in 13:28 that one of his sons was a son-in-law of Sanballat. Jonathan is here quite probably a scribal error for Johannan (cf. v. 22). Josephus (Ant. Xi.) tells the story that Johanan murdered his brother Jesus, who was a favorite of the Persian governor Bagoas. Johanan is also mentioned in the Elephantine papyri (c. 410 B.C.). To equate this Johanan with the one mentioned in Ezra 10:6 is highly questionable. This list gives additional material to supplement the one in 1 Chr. 5:27-41. (F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 2, 251; comment in square bracket added; emphasis in original).
Furthermore, the Torah itself provides overwhelming evidence that it was redacted by later scribes:
Gen 12:6; 13:7 were written from the perspective of someone living in a time when the Canaanites were no longer in the land.
· The list of Edomite kings in Gen 36
· The phrase "before there reigned any kings over the children of Israel" (Gen 36:31), indicating that the author was living at a time when kings were part of Israel's history (a note which would have been unnecessary during the time of Moses and his contemporaries)
· The statement "No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses" in Deut 34:10
· Reference to the "book of the wars of the Lord" (Num 21:14) as an account corroborating a geographical description (Moses would not have needed to write this to an audience contemporary with these events and the geography thereof)
· The parenthetical note in Deut 2:20-23 is from an author later than Moses, explaining the presence of the Ammonites in the and, and why God had instructed Israel (through Moses) not to fight them.
· Use of the place name "Dan" in Gen 14:14--this place was originally known as Laish, and was not captured by Dan until the time of the Judges.
· The explanatory note "Kiriath Araba (that is, Hebron)" in Gen 23:2--this change of place name did not happen until the time of Joshua.
· The use of "Bethlehem" as a place name in Gen 35:19; 48:7.
· Repeated explanations of where certain places are, showing the reader was not going to be familiar with them (unnecessary for anyone living during Moses' or Joshua's time)--the wilderness of Zin, identified for the reader as being between Elim and Sinai (Exo 16:1; Num 33:36); Ijeabarim, identified as being near Moab (Num 21;11); Arnon, identified as the border of Moab (Num 21;13); a clarification necessary because previously it belonged to the Amorites (Judges 11:22-26); Etham, identified as being on the edge of the wilderness (Num 33:6); Jebus being identified as Jerusalem (Joshua 18:28; Judges 19:10).
· Reference in Gen 10:12 to "the great city of Calah" which did not exist until the ninth century BC.
LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, wrote the following under the heading of “Old Testament ‘Abridgers’”:
Evidence for abridgement or redaction of earlier documents is found throughout the historical books of the Bible (Judges through 2 Chronicles). The book of Judges covers such a long period of time that it must have been compiled from earlier records or oral traditions. That it was composed by a single historian is suggested by the fact that the book, as a whole, describes what the author saw as a cycle of sin, followed by captivity, then the cry of the people for assistance, and their delivery by a judge called by God. The perspective is clearly ex post facto rather than contemporary.
According to the Talmud, Samuel wrote the book of Judges (TB Baba Bathra 14b). But the notice that “in those days there was no king in Israel” (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) suggests that the book was composed at a time when there was a king in Israel. Moreover, the use of the name “Israel” leads to three possible conclusions. Either the book was written during the time of the united monarchy (Saul, David, Solomon), or it was composed in the kingdom of Israel after its split with Judah following the death of Solomon, or it was composed after both kingdoms had ceased to exist and had become more historical facts. In any event, the author would have had to have access to earlier records (whether written or oral) and may thus be termed an “abridger.” One of the records used by this abridger is the book of Joshua. Thus, for example, the story in Judges 1:11-15 is also found in Joshua 15:15-19, while Judges 2;6-9 draws upon Joshua 24:28-31.
But we can narrow down the time period for the composition of Judges even more In Judges 18:30, we read of the establishment of a shrine at the site of Dan, in northern Israel, where the family of one Jonathan “were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.” Since the ten tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., it is likely that the book of Judges was written after that time or that, at the very least, an editor added these comments at the later date . . . Similar phenomena are found in the book of Samuel, which was only later divided into 1-2 Samuel. Samuel, of course, did not write the book. His death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1. Since this is before the end of the later subdivision of 1 Samuel, it is clear that he did not write that book in its present form either. This does not mean that Samuel wrote nothing, or we have a clear statement in 1 Samuel 10:25 that Samuel had written some things. Some of his material may have been used by the later author who composed the book of Samuel. Indeed, because it covers such a long span of time, Samuel evidently is a combination of various works (see 1 Chronicles 29:29).
The time period in which the book of Samuel was written may be indicated by some of the anachronisms that appear in it. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:10, there is a reference to “his king,” in a period supposedly predating the choosing of Saul (1 Samuel 9) as Israel’s king. In several passages, we find mention of Judah and Israel at a time when they were supposedly a united people under either Saul or David (1 Samuel 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Samuel 3:10; 5:5; 11:11; 12:8; 19:11, 40-43; 21:2; 24:1, 9; see 1 Chronicles 21:5).
In 1 Samuel 1:9, there is reference to a temple, at a time when, according to other statements in the Bible, there was not yet a temple. This places the writing at least in the time of Solomon, who constructed the temple. But the reference to the kingdom of Judah in 1 Samuel 27:6 provides evidence that the book was written after the death of Solomon., for the kingdom was not split in two until the time of his son Rehoboam. (John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar [Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999], 3-5).
Finally, he harps on Joseph Smith's November 28, 1841 comment about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth" and then raises the issue of changes in the Book of Mormon. The changes in the Book of Mormon has been addressed in great detail, for instance, all 6 parts of Royal Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon (over 4,000 pages of text[!]) is available online here on the Mormon Interpreter Website (cf. FairMormon's discussion of this issue), let us examine the comment:
I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
The Book of Mormon is the most correct book, not based on the issue of textual purity, but its doctrinal content (e.g., it has the most lucid discussions of Christ’s atonement [2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42]). Further evidence of eisegesis of this passage is proven by the fact that this was a year after the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, an edition Joseph helped prepare, so obviously Joseph Smith was not talking about the “correctness” of the Book of Mormon being contingent upon its textual tenacity.
If the Book of Mormon cannot be the word of God as it is, for the most part, Mormon’s abridgement of the Nephite records, then the Bible is to be rejected, too. If Dave Bartosiewicz does not reject the Bible for this reason, he is being inconsistent, and as another anti-Mormon (James White) likes to say (correctly, I will add) in debates against Muslim apologists, "inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument." And a series of failed arguments against the Book of Mormon they truly are from Bartosiwicz.
Recommended Reading:
The following are volumes, representative of modern scholarship, demonstrates that much of the Old Testament texts have been edited and redacted by later "abridgers," as well as displaying the various literary methods used by these individuals:
Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Eisenbrauns, 2005)
John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism (Eisenbrauns, 2006)
Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Eerdmans, 1995)
Furthermore, the Bible would not fare well if David was consistent on this point, too. As I wrote in my paper, “Latter-day Saints and the Bible”:
Another theologically-motivated corruption to the Bible that is contained in the KJV and other translations can be seen in Deut 32:7-9. The NRSV of this pericope reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
For other instances of theologically-motivated corruptions to the Old Testament texts, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.: Fortress Press, 2011).
With respect to the New Testament, while the false claim of 99.9% level of textual purity is often bandied about by Evangelicals (more on this momentarily), the earlier one goes back, the wider the textual divergences between biblical texts. For instance, Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, commenting on the Gospel of John portrayed in two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and p75) reveal 85% agreement, leaving 15% disagreement. This is a far-cry from the 99.9% figure! Further, Comfort and Barrett also reveal that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p13 and p46 display 80% agreement and 20% disagreement (see Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, ed. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts [2d ed.: Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing, 2002], 504, 83).
One common mistake (if not down-right lie) one hears from many Evangelical apologists is that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Text have no textual differences, being one example of the perfect (or near-perfect [99.9% is a figure that Norman Geisler et al., likes to throw out]). However, such is without any basis in reality. Sadly, this “argument” appears in many popular works (e.g., Josh McDowell’s poorly researched book, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict).
Michael S. Heiser, an Evangelical scholar, presents these differences in a paper entitled, "Letter Differences in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” One should read it and even save it for future reference, as this claim is very popular though it is simply false. Hopefully honest Evangelicals who are made aware of this will drop this very errant, if not deceptive, argument.
Recommended Reading:
The following are volumes, representative of modern scholarship, demonstrates that much of the Old Testament texts have been edited and redacted by later "abridgers," as well as displaying the various literary methods used by these individuals:
Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Eisenbrauns, 2005)
John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism (Eisenbrauns, 2006)
Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Eerdmans, 1995)