Moroni’s New Testament: Proof that the Author of the Book of Mormon Used the King James Version

Moroni's NT

Many passages of the Book of Mormon are demonstrably dependent on the New Testament. The most obvious use of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon comes in 3 Nephi 12–14, most of which is copied nearly verbatim from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 in the King James Version (KJV). However, there are many other interesting examples that are important because they demonstrate this textual dependence in other ways. Among the most noteworthy parts of the Book of Mormon making use of the New Testament are the writings attributed to Moroni, especially Mormon 8–9 and Moroni 7–10.

In a new series of articles, I explore the evidence from these passages that they were composed—not just translated—by a modern author who drew freely and extensively on the New Testament from the KJV. Three installments of this series are now online. Here I will provide what the Book of Mormon would call an abridgment of those three articles. The headings below give the titles of each article with a link.


Part 1: The Use of the KJV New Testament in the Books of Mormon and Moroni

In part 1 of the series, I provide an overview of the subject. I first look at what the Book of Mormon itself claims about the writings of Moroni: that he was a Nephite prophet in the early fifth century AD writing partly to address concerns of his own day and partly to exhort future readers to accept the message of the Book of Mormon.

Next, I discuss criteria for identifying meaningful parallels between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Expressions that are too short, not distinctive, or not meaningful, or that could come from the Old Testament books to which Moroni (if he existed) would have had access, should not be counted here. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Mormonism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Light Analogy, Theological Method, and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Christiaan Huygens

Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), portrait by Caspar Netscher (1670)

In 2010 I participated in a lengthy online written debate entitled “The Great Trinity Debate” with a Christadelphian named David Burke. I presented a defense of Trinitarianism and Burke defended Unitarianism (of the “Biblical Unitarian” variety). A few days after our opening statements, another Unitarian named Jaco Van Zyl posted a comment on a Unitarian website criticizing my use of the scientific study of light as an analogy. Van Zyl badly misrepresented what I said, making any response to his comment seemingly unnecessary. However, just a few months ago a popular Mormon blogger, Robert Boylan, quoted Van Zyl’s comment with approval, likewise completely misunderstanding the point of the analogy. Apparently, even something buried far down in the comments section on a blog eight years ago can be easily resurrected and given new life in cyberspace.

In his comment, Van Zyl wrote:

Firstly, and I hope Bowman will not make this rather amateurish mistake, this analogy sounds like “proof by illustration.” If, indeed, he is not trying to prove the validity of different “natures” in one “being” by using this example, it still does not do much for Bowman’s argument, and it brings me to my next qualm: Why use an illustration in which different natures of light has been confirmed, to prove the plurality of another (God), when this is exactly what has to be determined?

Van Zyl continues in this vein, raising various objections against using light as an analogy to illustrate or even to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. You can follow the link given above and read his entire comment. I won’t be responding to everything he said, but rather will be focused on his objection to my use of the scientific study of the properties of light as an analogy. Continue reading

Posted in Trinity | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Jesus the Divine Bridegroom: Michael Tait’s Case for a High Christology in Mark

Tait - Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2,18-22


Tait, Michael. Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18-22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded. Analecta Biblica 185. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010.




Michael Tait is a former schoolteacher and headmaster with two doctorates who sought but never entered the Catholic priesthood, instead becoming an accomplished biblical scholar. The present book is the published version of the dissertation for his second doctoral degree (Ph.D., University of Manchester, 2008).

In this densely packed and carefully reasoned book, Tait argues that Jesus’ reference to himself as “the bridegroom” in Mark 2:19-20 reflects a divine Christology in Mark every bit as “high” as what we find “in John, Paul or Hebrews” (17). In response to the question why Jesus’ disciples were not fasting, Jesus replied:

“While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day” (Mark 2:19-20 NASB).

Tait’s argument proceeds in four main stages.

First, in chapters 1–3 he argues that in the surrounding context of the passage, Mark presents Jesus in ways that implicitly attribute divine powers or prerogatives to him (16–134). Thus, Jesus forgives sins, even seeking out sinners, and miraculously heals people as demonstrations of his divine authority to do so (Mark 2:1–3:6). In general, I agree with the point Tait is making here, but some elements of his argument are open to question. In particular, I found his attempt to show that a second “controversy collection” later in the Gospel (Mark 11:27–12:35) exhibits a theological structure parallel to Mark 2:1–3:6 unpersuasive and a bit of a distraction (79–90, 119–33).

Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Jesus and Christology | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Is the Expression “Make a Record” Evidence for the Book of Mormon? A Case Study in Testing Mormon Apologetic Arguments

Nephi makes a record

The “Book of Mormon Central” website, founded by LDS scholars Lynne Wilson and John W. Welch in 2015 and operated by the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, has quickly become a popular source for apologetic arguments in defense of the antiquity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Many of the arguments presented there were previously advanced by LDS scholars and other apologists, while some of the arguments appear to be new ones, presumably originating with the Mormons responsible for producing the website.

One such new argument for the Book of Mormon appeared on the website on June 26, 2018, in an anonymous article, as well as in a video on YouTube posted the same day.[1] Since it is anonymous, I will simply refer to the author as BMC (Book of Mormon Central). The opening sentences (which are the same in the article and the video) sum up the claim:

The writers of the Book of Mormon often stated that they would “make a record” of the things that they had seen or done. The fact that they said they would “make a record” rather than “write a record” or some other similar phrase may seem insignificant. However, this phrase provides evidence that the writers of the Book of Mormon had training in the ways of ancient scribes.

When reading or listening to an argument, it is important to pay close attention and to ask questions. Is this statement or assertion factually accurate? What is the source of this information? Does the conclusion follow from the premises or the information provided? Let’s use this recent argument as a case study in how to go about evaluating an argument.


What does the text really say?

The first thing we will want to do is to confirm the basic claim or claims being made. In this instance, BMC claims that the Book of Mormon writers used the wording make a record “rather than” the expression write a record or something similar. Immediately we will want to know if it is true that the Book of Mormon used one expression and not another. It turns out this claim is not correct.

Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Mormonism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Lydia McGrew on Credentials and New Testament Scholarship

Lydia McGrewLydia McGrew is a scholar trained in the study of literature (her Ph.D. was in English literature), an accomplished author of peer-reviewed publications in philosophy (including epistemology and philosophy of religion) including some directly relevant to Gospel scholarship, and recently the author of an excellent book (which I endorsed) entitled Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. Her dual expertise in literature and analytic philosophy equips her handily to engage critical issues in the study of the biblical texts.

Lydia should not need to defend her qualifications to write on the academic study of the Gospels. Unfortunately, some people whose views on the Gospels that Lydia critiques (and these include some friends of mine) have dismissed her work on the grounds that she is unqualified to address the issues. On more than one occasion I have explained to some of these individuals why I think their dismissiveness toward her is a mistake. Now Lydia has written a lengthy apologia for her contributions to this field of study, “On Credentials, Philosophy, and NT Studies.” My only regret in this regard is that I didn’t write it for her. I know from my own personal experience that it is difficult to defend one’s qualifications without coming across as self-serving. I hope those who are dubious about Lydia’s professional qualifications will look past any such superficial impression and seriously consider what she says.

More important still, I would very much like to see respectful dialogue among evangelicals on the controversial subjects at issue. I have great admiration for all of the major players in the recent controversies, including Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and Lydia McGrew, and I greatly appreciate the contributions that these and other Christian scholars have made to the study and defense of the Gospels. I have learned from all of them and I want to continue learning from them, even from their disagreements. I am not looking for more agreement, but I am looking for more argumentation and less ad hominem, more light and less heat, more collegiality and less partisanship, more bridge-building and less demolition. (Please note that I think both sides in the recent controversies can improve in these areas.) We can, should, and must learn from those with whom we disagree. Our focus should be on defending the faith, not defending our turf.

I welcome comments on what I have said here.


Posted in Biblical Studies, Christian apologists, Jesus and Christology | Tagged , , , , | 16 Comments

Looking for a Low Christology in the Gospel of John: A Review Article

Truth, Testimony, and Transformation

Kim, Yung Suk. Truth, Testimony, and Transformation: A New Reading of the “I Am” Sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014.


Yung Suk Kim is Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology, Virginia Union University. He describes himself as a “humanist theologian.” In this short book (the body of which is 78 pages), Kim argues that the Gospel of John should be understood not as teaching exclusivism but inclusivism and empowerment through a “low Christology” in which Jesus was not God incarnate but “the Jewish Messiah” who worked on God’s behalf (ix, 1). Kim’s goal is to explain how John 14:6, in which Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” does not mean that Jesus himself is the way but that Jesus was someone who showed us the way. This interpretive maneuver then allows Kim to maintain that the way can be found apart from Jesus, thereby divesting the Christian faith of the “exclusivist” claim John 14:6 has traditionally been understood as expressing.

In order to make such a highly revisionist interpretation of the Gospel of John viable, Kim knows he must counter two traditional elements of the Christian faith. First, Kim must deny that Jesus died on the cross to atone for human sins, since obviously such an idea makes Jesus indispensable for human salvation. Second, he must reject the idea that Jesus is God, which would make him unique among all religious leaders and teachers in history. Kim therefore tries to show that the Gospel of John teaches neither of these ideas. It does not go well.
Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Jesus and Christology | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Did Jesus Exist before He Was Born?

Angel appears to Joseph in a dream - Anton Raphael Mengs

Anton Raphael Mengs – Angel Appears to Joseph in a Dream (1773/1774)

Critics of the Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ as God incarnate sometimes argue that Jesus could not have existed before he was born. They point out that Jesus received his name “Jesus” when he was born (Matt. 1:21, 25; Luke 1:31; 2:21). Before that time, these critics conclude, Jesus simply didn’t exist. And if Jesus didn’t exist before his birth, then obviously he cannot be God, since God has always existed. For good measure, they often argue that Jesus was also not the Son of God prior to his birth because the angel Gabriel told Mary that her child was going to be “called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35, cf. 1:32).

As reasonable as these arguments no doubt seem to those who present them, they simply contradict the facts of what the New Testament writings actually say. As it turns out, in various places the New Testament refers to the person in question, in the context of the period of time preceding his birth, as “Jesus,” “Christ,” and God’s “Son.” Let’s look at each of them.


The preincarnate person we know as Jesus is actually called Jesus in the best reading of Jude 5: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe” (ESV). Many of the earliest manuscripts actually say “Jesus” instead of “the Lord” in verse 5, and this is most likely the original reading. Older English versions (KJV, NKJV, etc.) and a few newer ones (NASB, NIV, NRSV) follow the more familiar reading “the Lord” here, but several recent versions agree with the ESV in accepting the reading “Jesus” (CSB, NET, NLT). Ed Komoszewski and I give three reasons supporting this reading in our book Putting Jesus in His Place.[1]

It is, of course, reasonable to maintain that the person we call Jesus did not go by that name at the time of the Exodus. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Jesus and Christology, Oneness, Uncategorized, Unitarianism | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

8 Answers to Why Nabeel Qureshi Was Not Healed: Nabeel Qureshi and Healing, Part 10

Nabeel Qureshi being baptized by David Wood

Nabeel Qureshi being baptized by David Wood

Part 1 of this series, “A Failed Experiment,” provides the necessary background and explains my purpose in critiquing the late Nabeel Qureshi’s views on healing.


In this series, I have presented eight reasons why we should not expect God always to heal people, even Christian believers, in response to our prayers. We may ask God to heal, and sometimes he will—usually in providential ways, more rarely in overtly miraculous ways. Miraculous healings are the exception, not the rule. We should be pleasantly surprised and grateful when God does heal, not surprised when God does not heal. We should not be surprised, for example, that Nabeel Qureshi was not healed, as much as we had wished and prayed for it. Here is a summary of the eight reasons:

  1. Neither extreme cessationism nor extreme continuationism with regard to miracles of healing is a biblically sound position. Extreme cessationism is false because God is free to heal people providentially or miraculously whenever he chooses. Extreme continuationism is false because our situation is clearly different in that Jesus is not physically present and we have no living apostles or prophets. Miracles have occurred throughout church history, but sporadically and unpredictably. (Part 2)
  2. Although all Christians are disciples, not all disciples are empowered to perform miracles of healing at will. In the NT, Jesus and the apostles (and their inspired associates) were the only persons who could heal others at will, and they did so to authenticate the gospel, not to establish healing as something promised to all believers throughout time. God still heals people today, but there are no individuals living today who are empowered to heal others at will. (Part 3)
  3. Jesus healed everyone who came to him or were brought to him for healing while he was physically present because he was there in the flesh demonstrating his divine power and intention to save, not because he promised to heal all believers throughout church history. God does not normally intervene miraculously to heal people because he has ordered life in his creation so that our actions have meaning and consequences. (Part 4)
  4. God can be glorified in our lives whether we are healed or not, and the full, complete revelation of God’s glory awaits the future resurrection and consummation. (Part 5)
  5. In context, Matthew 8:17 affirms that Jesus healed people as a sign of his mission to save people from their sins, not to reveal that it is always God’s will to heal people. (Part 6)
  6. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead to demonstrate that in him we have the assurance of eternal life, not to encourage people to pray for the dead to be resurrected now. (Part 7)
  7. Jesus granted healing to people who came to him believing that he could—not that he necessarily would—heal them or their loved ones. (Part 8)
  8. Having around a sick person a group of people who all have faith is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about healing: it is not necessary because Jesus even healed the sick while hostile critics watched, and it is not sufficient because the NT says nothing to suggest that a group of people with faith are assured of obtaining the desired healing. (Part 9)

Getting this issue right is of extreme importance in the proclamation and defense of the gospel. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Communal Faith and Healing: Nabeel Qureshi and Healing, Part 9

George Percy Jacomb Hood - The Raising of Jairus' Daughter (1895)

George Percy Jacomb Hood – The Raising of Jairus’ Daughter (1895)

Part 1 of this series, “A Failed Experiment,” provides the necessary background and explains my purpose in critiquing the late Nabeel Qureshi’s views on healing.


A key idea in Nabeel Qureshi’s thinking about miraculous healing was that such healing required that the sick person be surrounded by people who had faith that he would be healed. Nabeel thought he had found this idea supported in several miracle accounts in the New Testament. Let’s take a close look at the passages and see.


The Faith of the Paralytic’s Friends—and the Unbelief of Jesus’ Foes

Let’s start with the account of the paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-13; Luke 5:18-26). We have already shown earlier in this series (Part 6) that Jesus’ healing of the paralytic was done as a demonstration of his greater purpose in coming, which was to save people from their sins. That fact about Jesus’ healings poses a problem for the belief that we can bring about a person’s healing if we agree together in faith that God will heal him. Jesus’ healing people is no more dependent on the faith of others than is his saving people from their sins.

Nabeel mentioned more than once that Jesus seems to have healed the paralytic because of the faith of his associates (who had lowered him through a hole in the roof so as to get him to Jesus) rather than his own faith. I think this is mistaken. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Faith and Healing in Jesus’ Ministry: Nabeel Qureshi and Healing, Part 8

James Tissot, The Possessed Boy at the Foot of Mount Tabor (ca. 1890)

James Tissot, The Possessed Boy at the Foot of Mount Tabor (ca. 1890)

Part 1 of this series, “A Failed Experiment,” provides the necessary background and explains my purpose in critiquing the late Nabeel Qureshi’s views on healing.


In at least three of Nabeel Qureshi’s vlogs, he spent some time commenting on the role of faith in the healings that Jesus performed. I appreciated his cautiousness on this subject. He acknowledged more than once that some people who appear to have faith are not healed, and he candidly admitted he didn’t know what to do with that fact. He agreed that it would be improper to blame a person’s lack of healing on his or her lack of faith.

On the other hand, Nabeel argued that in many instances it was the faith of those around the sick person, not necessarily the faith of that sick individual, that was instrumental in his healing. He went so far as to suggest that when Jesus was performing healings he excluded from his presence people who lacked faith or who doubted, presumably (if I understood Nabeel’s point) because their unbelief or doubt would interfere with or impede the act of obtaining the person’s healing. The healing accounts he mentioned in these comments were those of the paralytic, the deaf-mute man, Jairus’s daughter, and the demonized boy (##15, 29, and 32).

Before looking at individual texts, I think it would be helpful to distinguish three categories of miraculous works: healings, exorcisms, and resurrections from the dead. In both exorcisms and resurrections, the affected individual cannot ask for help and cannot have faith. In all of the Gospel accounts, the demon-possessed person has no control over his or her faculties and if anything, due to the demon, is frightened of Jesus. Dead people cannot believe and cannot request help, obviously. This leaves the matter of healings, in which the sick, ill, or infirm person is physically capable of asking for help and is constitutionally able to believe (whatever his or her moral and spiritual condition). So in practical terms accounts of exorcisms and resurrections are not going to involve the beneficiary having faith. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments