Berean Latter-day Saints

LATTER-DAY SAINTS AND THE BIBLE: The Bible as Sacred Scripture

Berean Latter-day Saints

Latter-day Saints have long been given the reputation as being "weird" among the different denominations of Christianity; due to their different understanding of the nature of God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, the life and purpose of man, and specially their unique belief of continuing revelation and an open canon. Several people paint the church as "non-Christian" for having these different set of beliefs while at the same time saying that "confessing that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that he raised from the dead" is enough to make me a Christian—at the same time; when those are the very things Latter-day Saints have believed. Their caricatures of Latter-day Saints and their beliefs have misled many on who they really are and are biased for their own beliefs. Might be a battle between who is right and who is wrong but approaching things without understanding then gets you into a lot of trouble.

Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon, and what that means is that we believe additional Scriptures can come by divine revelation. Latter-day Saints accept the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as sacred Scriptures: that we call the "Standard Works' '. The rest of Christian denominations however believed in a closed canon, and that means there can no other be Scripture other than the Bible. This belief of an Open Canon leads them to the conclusion that we have no regard nor care for the Bible, or that we do not believe in the Bible. So, how can we address these preconceived beliefs about Latter-day Saints and the Holy Bible?

We will first make ourselves clear that Latter-day Saints believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God, given to us by inspiration. Without the Holy Bible, the church could not exist, same as with the Book of Mormon. In the statement of beliefs developed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, it states in article 8 of the Articles of Faith that "We believe in the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe in the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God." Elder Jeffery R. Holland of the twelve, on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible said that: “We love and revere the Bible, . . . It is always identified first in our canon, our ‘standard works.’” (Liahona, May 2011). The following are statements of the Presidents of the Church on the Sacredness of the Holy Bible in the Church as Sacred Inspired Scripture (as contained in "Latter-day Prophets Speak about the Old Testament", Liahona, February 2002) :

Joseph Smith (1805–44), First President of the Church:

“We have sufficient grounds to go on and prove from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements, the same, and the officers to officiate, the same; and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the same: therefore, as Noah was a preacher of righteousness he must have been baptized and ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of the hands” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 264).

Brigham Young (1801–77), Second President of the Church:

“We consider the Bible … as a guide … pointing to a certain destination. This is a true doctrine, which we boldly advance. If you will follow the doctrines, and be guided by the precepts of that book, it will direct you where you may see as you are seen, where you may converse with Jesus Christ, have the visitation of angels, have dreams, visions, and revelations, and understand and know God for yourselves. Is it not a stay and a staff to you? Yes; it will prove to you that you are following in the footsteps of the ancients. You can see what they saw, understand what they enjoyed” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 120).

George Albert Smith (1870–1951), Eighth President of the Church:

“The Lord, when he placed our first parents on the earth, gave them instructions and from time to time he has sent his prophets to counsel their descendants. We have in the Old and the New Testament the teachings of the Lord, not of man, but the advice of our Heavenly Father intended to direct us along the pathway that will eventually terminate in the celestial kingdom. How wonderful it is to know that there is a pathway leading to a glorious kingdom” (in Conference Report, October 1937, 49).

Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972), Tenth President of the Church:

“The Holy Bible has had a greater influence on the world for good than any other book ever published. … The reason for the Bible’s great influence for good is because it is inspired, containing the word of the Lord delivered to his prophets who wrote and spoke as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost since the world began. It has drawn the fire of adverse criticism for the self-same reason. Had it not been an inspired record less attention would have been paid to it by the opposing critics, who have drawn their inspiration from the author of evil, who in the very beginning swore in his wrath that he would endeavor to destroy the work of God” (Seek Ye Earnestly, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1972], 363).

Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985), Twelfth President of the Church:

“From infancy I had enjoyed the simplified and pictured Bible stories, but the original Bible seemed so interminable in length, so difficult of understanding that I had avoided it until a challenge came to me [as a teenager attending stake conference. The speaker] gave a discourse on the value of reading the Bible. In conclusion she asked for a showing of hands of all who had read it through. The hands that were raised out of the large congregation were so few and so timid! … I was shocked into an unalterable determination to read the great book. “As soon as I reached home after the meeting I began with the first verse of Genesis and continued faithfully every day with the reading. “What a satisfaction it was to me [a year later] to realize I had read the Bible through from beginning to end! And what exultation of spirit! … “I commend it to you” (“What I Read as a Boy,” Children’s Friend, November 1943, 508).

Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994), Thirteenth President of the Church:

“I love the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments. It is a source of great truth. It teaches us about the life and ministry of the Master. From its pages we learn of the hand of God in directing the affairs of His people from the very beginning of the earth’s history. It would be difficult to [over]estimate the impact the Bible has had on the history of the world. Its pages have blessed the lives of generations” (“The Gift of Modern Revelation,” Ensign, November 1986, 78).

Howard W. Hunter (1907–95), Fourteenth President of the Church:

“Reading and studying the scriptures make us conscious of the many conditional promises made by the Lord to encourage obedience and righteous living. Israelite history is filled with examples of covenants, which constitute one of the central themes of the Old Testament—the promises of God made in exchange for the commitments of the prophets and the people. … If we choose to react like Joshua, and Abraham, and Rebekah and Rachel, our response will be, simply, to go and do the thing that the Lord has commanded” (“Commitment to God,” Ensign, November 1982, 57–58).

Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008), Fifteenth President of the Church:

“The standard works are all indispensable to our understanding of the things of God. The Bible provides the foundation of our faith: The Old Testament gives the word of Jehovah through His ancient prophets; the New Testament sets forth, in beautiful language, the matchless life and sacrifice of the Savior of mankind” (“‘The Order and Will of God,’” Tambuli, August 1989, 2).

The Restoration of the church of Jesus Christ started because of young Joseph Smith's love of the Bible. Without the Bible being accessible to him, he will not have the desire to know the truth about God, the Savior and his church. It was James 1:5 in the New Testament that led him to the desire to go to pray in the Palmyra grove—where he received the Divine Vision of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ (JSH 1:11-20). The Bible is one of the foundations of the Church together with other Scriptures and the divine revelations; however, we do not view the Bible as God's final revelation or the final authority for the truth of God. God is the final authority for all truth about Himself and His Son.

Some denominations hold to a belief that they call "Sola Scriptura '' (Latin, it means "Scripture Alone"). This belief claims that Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and is the final authority. However, this itself cannot be found in the pages of the Bible itself. God revealed Himself in many ways: primarily through divine revelation, His creation, visions, inspired Scripture; and most of all is through the person of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:1-18; Heb. 1:1-3). The New Testament Church had revelations through prophets and apostles, visions, Scripture, and sacred tradition as their basis; and these did not cease when Christ came and departed. It has always stayed (see. Acts 11:27-28; 13:1; 15:22, 32; 21:9-10; 1Cor. 12:22-28; Eph. 2:19-21; 4:11-14; Gal. 1:11; 2Tim. 3:16-17; Rev. 11:3-10). The New Testament church has no fixed canon as we do today, but did accept the Old Testament (particularly the Greek Septuagint) primarily as inspired Scripture; and as time goes, the letters of the Apostles have been treated and accepted as Sacred Scripture. The New Testament church did not limit themselves to Scripture and did not regard it as the final authority; nor did the apostolic Fathers taught the inerrancy of Scripture and its sufficiency (for further discussion, see. Robert Boylan: Not By Scripture Alone [2017]). For example, Clement appeals to Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition as authoritative sources in the Church (1Clement 42:1-4; 44:1-3). Paul also said that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1Tim. 3:15), and not the Bible alone in itself.

Just because one has another view of the Bible—does not mean that they do not view it as inspired or give no importance to it. Interestingly, we have different canons in the Early Church before the canonization of the Bible as we have it today; and it accepts other books apart from our modern canon as inspired Scripture: e.g., Origen accepted the Epistle of Barabbas, the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture; The Murotonian Fragment (c. 2nd Century), accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as Scripture; and Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D) accepts a canon of 30 books in the New Testament that would include the the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barabbas, and the Preaching of Peter (see. Daniel C. Peterson, Stephen D. Ricks, Comparing LDS Beliefs with First Century Christianity [Ensign, March 1988]). Authors of the New Testament also have drawn from extra-biblical books e.g., the General Epistle of Jude quotes much from the Apocalyptical Book of Enoch. We have different variations of the Scriptural canon throughout Christian history as we see above. Roman Catholics accept a different set of books in their canon and have more books compared to Protestants, as well as in the Eastern Orthodox churches with an unsettled question on the biblical canon. The Reformer Martin Luther rejected several books of the Bible, e.g., the Epistle of St. James for it's inconsistency with his idea of Sola Fide. We believe in the Bible, but we do not accept it to be free from human error, nor is it sufficient for knowledge of the Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ.

One note also on the Bible and Articles of Faith no. 8 that we believe in the Bible to be the word of God ". . . as far as it is translated correctly" does not imply rejecting the Bible because of translation variations and errors. The King James Version is accepted by the Church as its official Bible translation, however it is acknowledged that it contains translation and textual problems. Take for example the additional passages in its textual basis, the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text: e.g., 1 John 5:7-8 as a later addition to the General Epistles—with no Greek manuscript support; and Deuteronomy 32:7-9 in the Masoretic text reading as "sons of Adam'' in the King James Version instead of "The Most High'' (El/Elyon); where the editing of the Masoretic text does not reflect the Near Eastern nature of the Old Testament with the God of Israel as the chief Deity among the Divine council (see. Jewish Study Bible [Oxford, 2014], 419.; Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. [Fortress Press, 2011]). Latter-day Saints and the church leaders also have used other translations of the Bible in their study and talks, such as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland and the NIV and NKJV, etc. This will be later discussed in another article on these series on Latter-day Saints and the Bible.

We love the Bible. We read the Bible. We study the Bible. The Bible has a key role in our church, and is supported by other Scriptures that were given through the continuing revelation of God. We made ourselves clear on what we believe about the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, and it is Inspired Scripture.

𝗝𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗜𝗔𝗛 𝟭𝟳:𝟵, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 "𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗧" 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗢𝗞 𝗢𝗙 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗢𝗡

For us Latter-day Saints, ang testimony of the Book of Mormon is the key to be sure that the church is true, and the Gospel is true. Without the Book of Mormon, there will be no restoration. Moroni promised na if one prays for the Book of Mormon, God Himself through the Holy Spirit will testify to the individual on whether the book is true or not (Moro. 10:4-5). Ang mga critics will attack this, but some who done it cannot deny it. Critics will want to go around sa promise na ito by proof-texting one passage from the Old Testament that reads:

"The heart [הַלֵּב] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9)

They will then conclude therefore that the promise is deceitful, and therefore cannot be used to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. Not
Pponly ang statement na ito ay blasphemous, but this relies on jumping on conclusions; without any logical and exegetical foundations. Sa Bible, ang "heart" ay ginagamit bilang isang counterpart sa buong being ng isang tao, mind and soul. The Hebrew word being used sa Jeremiah 17:9 is הַלֵּב (haleb), and what this primarily means in this context of Scripture ay hindi nagrerefer sa "heart" as an organ itself but understood as the whole being of an individual; where it recalls Deuteronomy 29:18-19 and Deuteronomy 30:17 at ang pagtu-turn away ng mga "hearts" (הַלֵּב) ng Israel mula sa Panginoon. Verse 5 also says that ". . . Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." (King James Version); showing the "heart" departing from the Lord. We can see the same this use of the word even sa Greek Septuagint (LXX) and it's counterpart Greek word καρδιά (kardia). The argument na ang Jeremiah 17:9 talks about the spiritual impurity of an individual can be seen if Jeremiah is read up to verse 1 down to verse 10 where in context it reads:

"Thus saith the LORD: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like a tamarisk in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose trust the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out its roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but its foliage shall be luxuriant; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceeding weak--who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings." (Jer. 17:1-10, JPS Tanakh 1995)

Jeremiah here ay simply nagcocomplain sa kasamaan ng mga tao, as in considering ang backround in light of the times ni Jeremiah where people are desperately rejecting God and didn't place their trust on him. The problem with how anti-mormons use this passage ay na ang testimony of the Book of Mormon is where God himself testifies to the heart of the individual and not the individual's heart alone for itself decide on whether the Book is true or not. In other context, הַלֵּב (haleb) and καρδιά (kardia) are used in a positive sense rather than negative ones. This argument will be ang isang favorite by those who hold a Calvinistic view of Soteriology, na kung saan sila ay naniniwala sa tinatawag natin na Total Depravity, i.e that human beings ay inherently evil and cannot do any good. It is false and is incorrect in many levels, in light of Scripture and divine revelation. In the Scriptures, we can see that in some moments ay ginamit also ang "heart" (הַלֵּב/καρδιά) when God wants to tell a person something or as an instrument within sa being ng individual, to discern whether something ay good or bad; right or wrong. As in one time sa New Testament when Peter and John ay on their road to Emmaus; they knew that it was Christ whom they are walking with dahil ang kanilang hearts "burned" as the Savior spoke and opened the Scriptures to them (Lk. 24:32). If one uses ang standard ng mga critics on Jeremiah 17:9, I think they should also use it for this. If they do think na ang text na ito is relevant to a claim that the Holy Spirit through one's heart will testify of the truth ng Book of Mormon, why can't they use it against these examples? Would they or clearly may bias lang sila?

We also see that salvation involves repentance, and ang repentance involves a change of heart. Ang person is changed when God opens the heart of someone and changes the heart of someone, and we can see this being true with the biblical text. Throughout the Scriptures, it is seen na ang heart ay ginagamit ng Diyos for his salvific work. Ang mga critics who use this ay hindi aware sa corpus of their own Soteriology and thus applies double standards for both their own groups and for the Church. Consider the following written by Latter-day Saint apologist, Jeff Lindsay:

In Jeremiah 20:9, we read of Jeremiah having the word of God like a fire in his heart, driving him to overrule his decision to quit preaching (a decision of his mind, presumably). Jeremiah doesn't think his heart is deceiving him! It's the receptacle for the revelation of the word of God in him.
· In Acts 16:14-15, we read of Lydia becoming converted to the Gospel because the Lord opened her heart.
· In Galatians 4:6, we read that God "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts."
· In Phil. 4:6-8, we read of the importance of prayer, of seeking truth, and of having God (not human influences) keep our heart and mind.
· In 2 Pet. 1:19-21, we read of "the more sure word of prophecy" that comes from inspiration from the Holy Ghost. Heeding it can cause the "day star to arise in our hearts." That sounds like a pretty good thing.
· In Acts 2:37,38, people who heard the word of God were pricked in their hearts. They were being converted, and in this process, they felt something in their hearts that led them to ask what they should do next (answer: be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost).
· In Luke 24:32, those who walked with the resurrected Christ along the road to Emmaus, not recognizing him, afterwards noted how their hearts had burned within them as He had taught them. This was not deceit, but a plain manifestation of divine influence.
· In Ephesians 3: 16-19, Paul asks that God would strengthen the Ephesians "by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." This influence of the Spirit on our soul, heart or mind (the inner man) will help us "to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge." In other words, to really comprehend the things of God, we cannot rely on logic and knowledge, but need the revelation of the Spirit to the inner man.
· In Matthew 16: 16-17, we find a similar concept plainly taught by Christ to Peter. Peter knew that Jesus was the son of God not because flesh and blood had revealed it (flesh and blood symbolize mortal factors, which I believe would include human logic), but because it was revealed to Peter by the Father.

If anyone wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true, as one who testifies that it is true, I will invite you to pray about it. It is God alone who will testify to you if the Book is true, and if the Gospel is true. Do what Moroni invites you, with "real intent". God testifies of the truthfulness of the Gospel through the Holy Ghost, and I testify of it as well. It is the very reason why I still am inside the church. Do it, and I promise you you will receive.

𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗟𝗨𝗣𝗔 𝗞𝗔𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦

This last August ay I encountered ang isang video ng isang content creator named “Muntinlupa Kaalaman” (through a mention by a friend who is also a fellow member and defender of the faith) na kung saan ay he argues na ang Philippines has mentions in the Bible; same that was argued by several religious groups in the Philippines and this claim has been widespread dahil din sa Pilipino pride and methods of proof-texting to try to prove among themselves which of them ay “totoo” at “nasa Bible”. These arguments presented in the video does not really hold much water because of the number of loopholes in their interpretation of the biblical text and relies upon presuppositions and a lot of assumptions. I see na ang content creator ay walang exposure to meaningful exegesis and hermeneutics on the text of Scripture, but why it matters to respond to these claims ay na ang mga ito ay misleading and does not present the facts and rhetoric ng biblical writers! They are reading something into the text but there are no meaningful point being drawn upon the text itself by letting the text speak for itself.

JOHN 15:16

John 10:16 reads in the New Revised Standard Version together with the Greek:

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. (New Revised Standard Version)

καὶ ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης· κἀκεῖνα δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσιν, καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν. (Nestle-Aland 28)

“Muntinlupa Kaalaman” argues na ang John 10:16 is futuristic in nature and therefore ay tumutukoy sa mga bagay na mangyayari palang at hindi currently occurring sa panahon ni Jesucristo. It totally came out of nowhere at what we see here that you do ay binibigyan mo lang ng meaning yung text rather than letting the text speak for itself. That literally goes away sa sinabi mo na “bayaan ang Biblia mismo” na magsabi sa atin kung ano yung meaning. Basically, ang ginagawa lang dito ng author ay eisegesis, speculation, at pagtagpi-tagpi ng mga text that absolutely have nothing to do with each other (proof-texting). Here's why masyadong misleading ang kanyang take sa John 10:16:

We should know that Jesus Christ was sent to Israel first and his disciples brought the message of salvation to the Gentiles. The house of Israel was the priority of the ministry of Jesus Christ first which can be seen in places sa New Testament na kung saan ay sinabi niya sa isang Canaanite woman (who is obviously a Gentile) who asked Jesus to heal his daughther. Jesus said:

“. . . I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24, New Revised Standard Version)

Jesus here emphasizes his priority to his ministry to the house of Israel but however, it does not show rejection of the Gentiles. Jesus later healed the woman’s daugther na kung saan dito ay naging way para maipakita ang faith ng Canaanite woman and as a message that salvation can be extended even to those who are outside of the House of Israel. In this way also, Jesus Christ shows fulfilments of Old Testament prophecies. The sheep are from Israel (1 Kgs. 22:17; Ps. 44:11-22; 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3), and are not of Gentiles like the Filipino people. Jesus told his disciples to “. . . Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt. 10:5-6). Jesus also said to the Samaritan woman that “. . . You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (Jn. 4:22). Si Apostle Paul din ay nag-preach muna to the Jews before preaching to the Gentiles where he said “. . . For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom 1:16); And then you have this in John 10:16 where Jesus Christ that he will bring that other sheep into one fold /flock and one shepherd. Jesus is the one that will gather the lost sheep of Israel; the sheep that was the people whose shepherds have let them astray (Jer. 23:1; 50:1-6; Ezek. 34:6). Jesus Christ is the Davidic King who is the Messiah will be the one that God will appoint as the one shepherd (Ezek. 34:1-24; Micah 5:4-5; Mk. 6:34). this is to Israel, and not to Gentiles. John 10:16 in no way, shape or form will refer to the Philippines.

ACTS 2:39

For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” (New Revised Standard Version)

ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν, ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν. (Nestle-Aland 28)

Ang scope ng message kung babasahin mo yung verse 6 at hindi puro cherrypicking, ito ay “ito the house of Israel”, and this is Peter preaching to Jews sa Jerusalem at ang mga Jews ang kanyang mga audiences, and ang main rhetorical goal ay na everyone who enter Christ through baptismal regeneration are adopted to Israel and benefit ang blessings ng Abrahamic covenant (Rom. 8:15; 9:1-5; Gal. 3:26). Ang problema dito sa sinasabi ng author ay na ang Acts 2:39 restrictly refers sa mga Pilipino, when this refers to the whole world in general. In what way, shape, or form does “far away” is substantive to the Philippines?

Acts 2:39 also does not give any geographical directions kagaya ng “far east” (that is a later European coining of terms for asia and not biblical nor ancient in nature). No word in the Greek says anything about distance and direction and the author relies alone on assumption rather than proven fact. The Greek uses the adverb μακρὰν (makran), that is the feminine accusative singular of μακρός (makros) at throughout sa New Testament ay it simply means "of long distance" (BDAG). If gusto ng author to imply a specific na direction, then there must be a necessity of coupling another term in order to do that; pero hindi ito ginawa ng author ng book of Acts. If the author of the book of Acts wishes to do so, we have common words used in Koine Greek for that, and as for the author’s assumptions, the Greek word ἀνατολή (hanatole). Using the methods being used by the author raises many questions on how the Greek word is used in other places in the Greek New Testament. New Testament writers μακρὰν in many contexts. Luke said that Jesus traveled μακρὰν from the house (Lk. 7:6). Paul was sent to μακρὰν to preach (Acts 22:21). Is Jesus traveling in the Philippines? Was Paul sent to preach in the Philippines?

ISAIAH 43:5

Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you;

אַל־תִּירָ֖א כִּ֣י אִתְּךָ־אָ֑נִי מִמִּזְרָח֙ אָבִ֣יא זַרְעֶ֔ךָ וּמִֽמַּעֲרָ֖ב אֲקַבְּצֶֽךָּ׃


The Hebrew word מִמִּזְרָח֙ (mizrach) in itself ay isang common na word for directions and not being substantive of “the Philippines”. Again, ang method na ginagamit dito ng author does not provide any proof that this gives specific reference to the Philippines. Again, yung approaches dito na porque “malayo” na ay “Pilipinas” na agad. The author is not aware of how the ancient world understood what “international” or “worldwide” is at the time before explorations are made at na may limited na understanding of Geography ang ancient authors unless explorations are made; and furthermore, there is no adjective coupled with מִמִּזְרָח֙ (mi-mizrach) for it to be translated as “Far East”. Isaiah does not have in mind ang South East Asia and this totally misses the point ng mga remnants of the house of Israel.



4990 מִזְרָח

מִזְרָח, Or. ) מַ׳Kahle Text 70(, SamP.M97 mazraÒ: זרח, Bauer-L. Heb. 493e; MHeb., EgArm. Nab. Palm. )Jean-H. Dictionnaire 146(, JArm. CPArm. Syr. מַדְנְחָא, Mnd. )Drower-M. Dictionary 239a(: מִזְרַח, מִזְרָ֫חָה, cs. מִזְרְחָה Dt 441 )Bauer-L. Heb. 527q(: the position of the rising sun:

—1. sunrise, שֶׁמֶשׁ מִ׳ Dt 447 Ju 2043 Is 4125 456 5919 Mal 111 ):: (מְבֹאוֹ Ps 501 1133, = חַשֶּׁמֶשׁ מ׳ Nu 2111 Jos 115 135 ).8.27.32 161.5f( 1912.27.34 2K 1033, מִזְרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ towards the sun Jos 121 Ju 2119, cj. Dt 441, = מִזְרָ֫חָה Ex 2713 3813 Nu 23 338 3219 3415 Dt 317.27 449 Jos 118 121.3 187 1913 208 1K 725 Jr 3140 Zech 144 1C 918 2614, עַד־מִזְרָח until sunrise Am 812 ) מִצָּפוֹן וְעַד מִ׳ !, ï Budde JBL 44:93f(; אֶרֶץ מִזְרָח Zech 87;

—2. the east Jos 113 1710 Is 412 435 4611 Da 89 1144 Ps 10312 ):: (מַעֲרָב 1073 2C 44 294, מִזְרָח in the east Neh 1237, towards the east 1C 924, מִמִּזְרַח שֶׁמֶשׁ לְ east of Ju 1118, = מִזְרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לְ Ju 2119, מִזְרַח יְרִיחוֹ the eastern side of Jerusalem Jos 419, מִמִּזְרַח יָנוֹחָה eastwards towards Jerusalem 166; רְחוֹב הַמִּ׳ the eastern square 2C 294 )ï Rudolph 292(; שַׁעַר הַמּ׳ the east gate Neh 329, לַמִּזְרָח in the east Neh 326 1C 59 728 1216 2617; מִזְרָח לְ east of 2C 512, = לְמִזְרַח 1C 663; עַד לְמִזְרָח as far as east of 1C 439, לַמִּזְרָחָה in the east 2C 3114, פְּנֵי מִזְרָח לְ the eastern side of 1C 510. †

(Koehler-Baumgartner, HALOT - Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 2000])

The scholarly consensus is that Old Testament authors refer to places in the Middle-East/Ancient Near East that are known in this time. They simply use מִזְרָח with no attached name to name a specific country or place, but a region and they base on their location for directions. If they want to argue that מִזְרָח (mizrach) is confined to East Asia and the Philippines in particular, and מַעֲרָב (maarab) for the United States; then we need to apply this unilaterally to the whole corpus of the Old Testament; e.g the men whom David defeated escaped toward מִזְרָח and מַעֲרָב (1Chr. 12:15). Did they escape all the way to South East Asia or within the ancient Near East? The same topic of the gathering of Israel says that they were gathered out from מִזְרָח (east), and from מַעֲרָב (west), and from מִצָּפֹ֥ון (north), and from וּמִיָּֽם (south) (Ps. 107:3). Bakit ba hindi nila ginagamit ang passages na ito since magkapareho lang naman ng tinuturo sa Isaiah 43:4-5? If east (מִזְרָח) means the “Far East” and west (מַעֲרָב) means the “Far West”; does this mean north is the “Far North” (Arctic/North Pole) and south is the “Far South” (Antarctic)? Are you living in these regions who gathered to a central gathering area? When Yahweh said that “they” may know “. . . from the rising of the sun (מִזְרָ), and from the west (מַעֲרָב) that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else . . .” (Isa. 45:6); is Yahweh’s blessing to Cyrus of Persia only a proof for only those who live in the Philippines and the United States that Yahweh alone is the only true God? When Isaiah wrote that “they” shall “. . . fear the name of the LORD from the west (מַעֲרָב), and his glory from the rising of the sun (מִזְרָח) . . . (Isa. 59:19); are those who fear the Lord only found in the Philippines and the United States or it will refer to the whole world?


CONCLUSION

Ang Bible ay hindi isang palayok ng fishball at kikiam para ating piliin lang what suits our needs, kagaya ng Filipino pride natin. If that is what they want to do with the text of the Bible, then they do not pay respect or give reverence to the Spirit of the Book. These texts being used and explained above do not give any clue in any way, shape, or form about the Philippines and the Filipino people. Some text refers solely to the nation of Israel and the Near East alone, and some of them refer to the whole wide world and not confined solely to the Philippines and the Filipino people. Proof-texting will get you to a lot of trouble when you do not understand the intention of the author and the circumstances that surround them. A Filipino-Centric view of the Bible won’t get anyone to anywhere when your goal is to go deeper behind the message of the text. Filipino-centrism confines itself to only one group of people, when the Old Testament focuses on one chosen group of people that was chosen by God to bless all nations of the earth (Gen. 22:17-18); whether they are Jew or Gentile. One becomes a member of the household of Israel in Christ (Rom. 8:15; 9:4-26; Gal. 3:26). When an individual accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ and follow the necessary principles and ordinances, he/she will be adopted to the household of Israel and enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. When one desires to the adopted to the household of Israel, forcing the Bible to speak about you and only you is not the way. I hope that more Filipinos will learn how to correctly interpret Scripture for the glory of God and not themselves.
__________________
Like and support our page and message us for your questions and get answers on: Facebook.com/bereanlatterdaysaints
Visit our blog at: bereanlatterdaysaints.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at: Quora.com/Nika0604