Is our current Bible corrupted?

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I asked you: Would you care to argue that Joseph didn't entirely complete his translation of the Book of Mormon? You replied:

Well, yes, actually. You see, there are the two thirds of the plates that he did not translate.

Let's see. Mormons explain that they don't rely on the JST because Joseph didn't get a chance to complete it. You now admit that Joseph didn't complete the translation of the Book of Mormon, either. The obvious conclusion is that you shouldn't rely on the Book of Mormon.

[urroner]

Lehi,

I asked you: Would you care to argue that Joseph didn't entirely complete his translation of the Book of Mormon? You replied:

Let's see. Mormons explain that they don't rely on the JST because Joseph didn't get a chance to complete it. You now admit that Joseph didn't complete the translation of the Book of Mormon, either. The obvious conclusion is that you shouldn't rely on the Book of Mormon.

Apples and oranges

The Book of Mormon was translated completely. What was on the gold plates were not translated completely. I hope you can see the difference.

The JST wasn't completed and the Lord has not told us to accept it as part of the authorized canon whereas the Lord as told us that the BofM is part of the authorized canon.

[urroner]

This is ridiculous. Ehrman doesn't consider himself an evangelical. He considers himself an ex-evangelical. In fact, he trumpets this self-identification, because it has been a key factor in catapulting him to stardom and making his popular books bestsellers. I'm not throwing Bart off the bus; Bart chose to get off the bus and is proud of it.

He reminds me of certain ex-Mormons.

[David T]

Let's see. Mormons explain that they don't rely on the JST because Joseph didn't get a chance to complete it.

What Mormons claim this?

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

I didn't make the claim that the Book of Mormon was translated incompletely. Lehi made that claim.

Apples and oranges

The Book of Mormon was translated completely. What was on the gold plates were not translated completely. I hope you can see the difference.

The JST wasn't completed and the Lord has not told us to accept it as part of the authorized canon whereas the Lord as told us that the BofM is part of the authorized canon.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I wrote: "Mormons explain that they don't rely on the JST because Joseph didn't get a chance to complete it." You replied:

What Mormons claim this?

Lehi, to whom I was replying, had challenged the assumption that Joseph had a chance to complete the JST. Do you disagree with him?

[David T]

nackhadlow,

I wrote: "Mormons explain that they don't rely on the JST because Joseph didn't get a chance to complete it." You replied:

Lehi, to whom I was replying, had challenged the assumption that Joseph had a chance to complete the JST. Do you disagree with him?

I disagree that the JST is an unreliable Doctrinal text due to any idea of incompleteness. Joseph did announce it complete, and had proposed that it be published (the New Testament bound together with the Book of Mormon!). However, this never happened in his life, and he did continue to tweak and edit it throughout his life - as he did (on a more minor scale) with a later edition of the Book of Mormon. It's consistent with how Joseph worked and viewed written revelations.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I had written:

This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.

You replied:

This was an addition pasted directly from the Book of Mormon text - an attempt at harmonization. The Book of Mormon text does not place this element in this textual context in Genesis (although it is in the narrative context).

Whatever the original source is for the Josephite prophecy tradition (which appears to be testamentary-genre expansion), it was probably separate from, and not a remnant of, any original received institutional text of the Genesis narrative.

It sounds like you are saying that the material added to Genesis 50 in the JST was "an addition pasted directly from the Book of Mormon text." You don't say who did this "pasting," but presumably it was Joseph Smith. Was this "attempt at harmonization" inspired or uninspired? The fact is that the addition to Genesis 50 reads as if it were actually recording a revelation that the patriarch Joseph received from God. This appears to be the standard LDS understanding of the passage:

"But where is the testament of Joseph, the birthright son of Jacob and spiritual head of the family after his father

[ElfLord]

ElfLord, are you referring to me or to Bart Ehrman?

Bart of course.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

Okay. So, you weren't actually reading any of his books. Is that correct? How did you come across Ehrman's views?

No, I've been reading "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" with a kindle emulator off of Amazon. I've found it very interesting.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You had stated that "conservative Christians" favored the view that the explanation for Matthew 2:23 is that Jews had altered the text of Isaiah 11:1 to obscure its reference to Jesus as a Nazarene. I asked you which conservative Christians took this view. You replied:

This is a bit frustrating. I wasted time looking up all five of your references; not one of them supports the textual corruption claim. What gives?

I wasn't referring to the textual corruption theory, just the general notion that Isa 11:1 is the source for the prophecy in Matthew. That was my fault for not being more clear. I apologize for that.

[ElfLord]

Some more histroy on this...

Etymology

Nazarene is anglicized from Greek Nazar?ne (????????), a word applied to Jesus in the New Testament.[9] Several Hebrew words have been suggested as roots:

[edit] Nazareth

The issue of whether Nazarene is derived from Nazareth has been the subject of much scholarly conjecture since the 19th century.[10] "Nazareth", in turn, may be derived from either na

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

Okay, no problem.

I wasn't referring to the textual corruption theory, just the general notion that Isa 11:1 is the source for the prophecy in Matthew. That was my fault for not being more clear. I apologize for that.

[Hick Preacher]

Theories about textual corruption are popular these days, because it would mean that history was rewritten, and the world is a completely different kind of place than we have been told by those in authority around us.

----------------

IMO the label 'Nazarene' (Matthew 2:23 ) was used epithetically because of a number of prophecies both written and spoken, not an explicit discrete written passage in the Old Testament.

This is because the prophets referred to the coming Messiah as a despised person, rejected by many of his contemporaries . (see: Psa. 22:6-8,13; 69:8,20-21; Isa. 11:1; 49:7; 53:2-3,8; Dan. 9: 26)

The catalyst being that the city called