Brass Plates or Bible, Which Contains More?

[Quiet Cricket]

In Sunday School a while back the teacher said that the Bible had more in it than the Brass Plates based on 1 Ne. 13:23. and that the BP only go up to Jeremiah. I raised my hand and said that I had always interpreted it the opposite way. The teacher got mad and told me to pray about it (he was mad probably because I contradicted him in public, maybe I shouldn't have, but I just wanted to clear it up. I don't know if I'm right or not.)

I think the Brass Plates have more prophecies based on the fact that many truths have been removed from the Bible, the BP contain other books such as Zenock, and the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible gave us many more pages that would go in Genesis (now the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price) I think if he translated the whole Old Testament he would have a similar amount to add to the whole thing. Also, grammatically I think this scripture is referring to the Bible when it says, "save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants...wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles." It is clear that even though the Bible contains less than the BP, they are still of great worth to the Gentiles. This just doesn't make sense if it is referring to the BP.

What do you think?

1 Nephi 13:23
And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.

[Mahonri]

I would say you are right based on the fact that there are several missing books and Prophets mentioned that we know nothing about such as Zenock and Zenos.

What else was thrown out to keep hidden the truths of godliness? It only makes sense that the Brass Plates would have more up until at least Jeremiah.

[oneClimbs]

The teacher is wrong, you and the Book of Mormon are correct.

The brass plates did only go up to Jeremiah, but Genesis to Jeremiah is 1020 pages in the LDS edition of the Old Testament, from Lamentations to Malachi is 164 pages. Let's say that the Old Testament we currently have is 100% complete, well then the Nephites were only missing about 7% of the Old Testament.

There is one other thing and it's just a theory, but there is a gap between Malachi and Christ's ministry of about 400 years. There were no prophets and there were many wars and on top of that you have the introduction of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, all who had vastly differing opinions on doctrine.

It is commonly taught that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible. Many think this happened after the loss of the apostles and I agree that much was probably lost then. But has anyone considered how much the Old Testament was corrupted during those 400 years of darkness with all those competing Jewish sects and wars? How much of the Old Testament was lost after the Babylonian captivity that Lehi fled from? Is is possible that the only complete account was on THOSE brass plates? Something to think about, I could be wrong.

[Hyrcanus]

The teacher is wrong, you and the Book of Mormon are correct.

The brass plates did only go up to Jeremiah, but Genesis to Jeremiah is 1020 pages in the LDS edition of the Old Testament, from Lamentations to Malachi is 164 pages. Let's say that the Old Testament we currently have is 100% complete, well then the Nephites were only missing about 7% of the Old Testament.

There is one other thing and it's just a theory, but there is a gap between Malachi and Christ's ministry of about 400 years. There were no prophets and there were many wars and on top of that you have the introduction of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, all who had vastly differing opinions on doctrine.

It is commonly taught that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible. Many think this happened after the loss of the apostles and I agree that much was probably lost then. But has anyone considered how much the Old Testament was corrupted during those 400 years of darkness with all those competing Jewish sects and wars? How much of the Old Testament was lost after the Babylonian captivity that Lehi fled from? Is is possible that the only complete account was on THOSE brass plates? Something to think about, I could be wrong.

Just a couple small nitpicks here:

- The Old Testament isn't in chronological order, in fact it is sort of a mess chronologically. I don't know how re-ordering it chronologically would effect your point.

- It probably isn't safe to assume one way or another that all the writings in the current Old Testament would definitely have been Brass Plates. Just as he had the writings of some Prophets that our existing Old Testament doesn't include, he may have been missing some as well. Most old codices even from early new testament times, didn't include consistent books in the Old Testament. There are quite a few apocryphal books floating around.

- Without more information, I think it is difficult to say what was included outside of what was specifically mentioned. Perhaps the Brass Plates were an abridgment of the writings that were extant at Lehi's time. They could have consolidated all the important spiritual information and left out some of the historical stuff. We really have very little idea.

- The gap between Malachi and the New Testament is due in part to the fact that we don't include the traditional Apocrypha. Just Maccabees I & II go a good ways towards closing that historical gap. I understand why we don't, I'm just adding some context that the gap isn't exactly a historical black hole.

[oneClimbs]

The teacher is wrong, you and the Book of Mormon are correct.

The brass plates did only go up to Jeremiah, but Genesis to Jeremiah is 1020 pages in the LDS edition of the Old Testament, from Lamentations to Malachi is 164 pages. Let's say that the Old Testament we currently have is 100% complete, well then the Nephites were only missing about 7% of the Old Testament.

There is one other thing and it's just a theory, but there is a gap between Malachi and Christ's ministry of about 400 years. There were no prophets and there were many wars and on top of that you have the introduction of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, all who had vastly differing opinions on doctrine.

It is commonly taught that many plain and precious truths were taken from the Bible. Many think this happened after the loss of the apostles and I agree that much was probably lost then. But has anyone considered how much the Old Testament was corrupted during those 400 years of darkness with all those competing Jewish sects and wars? How much of the Old Testament was lost after the Babylonian captivity that Lehi fled from? Is is possible that the only complete account was on THOSE brass plates? Something to think about, I could be wrong.

Just a couple small nitpicks here:

- The Old Testament isn't in chronological order, in fact it is sort of a mess chronologically. I don't know how re-ordering it chronologically would effect your point.

- It probably isn't safe to assume one way or another that all the writings in the current Old Testament would definitely have been Brass Plates. Just as he had the writings of some Prophets that our existing Old Testament doesn't include, he may have been missing some as well. Most old codices even from early new testament times, didn't include consistent books in the Old Testament. There are quite a few apocryphal books floating around.

- Without more information, I think it is difficult to say what was included outside of what was specifically mentioned. Perhaps the Brass Plates were an abridgment of the writings that were extant at Lehi's time. They could have consolidated all the important spiritual information and left out some of the historical stuff. We really have very little idea.

- The gap between Malachi and the New Testament is due in part to the fact that we don't include the traditional Apocrypha. Just Maccabees I & II go a good ways towards closing that historical gap. I understand why we don't, I'm just adding some context that the gap isn't exactly a historical black hole.

I concur my fellow circular-avatar chooser. My main point was to identify the fact that there is a lot about the Old Testament we tend to not understand and that it's best to trust what the Book of Mormon states. I apologize if my comments were written as to be understood as definitive in some respects.

I can only say that I differ with your in my opinion on the 400 year gap. The Apocrypha was removed by Martin Luther, if I recall correctly and it's mostly the Protestants that have continued to ignore it. The Lord revealed to Joseph that much of it was the ideas of men so Luther might have been correct in his assumptions that it didn't really belong, at least as well as the others did. This would further indicate that after Malachi, that was the beginning of the general apostasy that resulted in the climate the Savior stepped into in his mortal ministry.

I think we could all agree that much of the Bible is smeared by the fingerprints of men, but Joseph never translated the Apocrypha, never restored it to the Bible and the only other book that I could recall him saying didn't belong, was the Song of Solomon which he actually ripped out of a Bible on one occasion. Someone might want to look that story up, I don't have the time.

I do agree that the 400 year period isn't a historical black hole, but doctrinally and scripturally it definitely is, at least to us today.