tkv

I knew of a GA in the 1980s who had a standard quad reduced and rebound for ease of use when traveling.

I'd be interested to read Cowdery's account of the translation process. Can you supply some statements here?

It looks like a Bickertonite Book of Mormon.

On 6/29/2019 at 1:40 PM, caspianrex said:

Wayment chooses 70x7 in Matt. 18:22. In this choice, he follows the KJV (as well as the NKJV, MEV, and a few other modern versions).

In Matt. 1:25a, Wayment's text reads: "and they were not intimate until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

There is wide variation among modern versions on this verse, and like many other versions, Wayment includes a (fairly lengthy) footnote. Here is his note: "Some late manuscripts read she bore the firstborn son. Matthew appears to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin when he says until she bore a son. Matthew uses the traditional way of speaking about Joseph and Mary prior to the birth of Jesus and says literally that Joseph did not know Mary until she bore a son."

 

490 is now known to be inaccurate. The ESV, NIV, NRSV have it right at 77.

Matthew 1:25a: HCSB has something similar but better by keeping know: but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. Several newer versions keep know by itself. NIV goes with consummate marriage, NRSV with have marital relations.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Which more gets at the post exilic texts (which includes much of Isaiah I and not just deutero-Isaiah) being composed out of earlier texts.

Not sure I follow you here. Isaiah I is pre-exilic, is it not?

Here is some non–Latter-day Saint scholarship discussing evidence that Isaiah II has linguistic usage (the Qal Passive) that dates it with pre-exilic Isaiah I.

And this 1984 BYU article looks like it's on the topic.

See this thread for starters.

Does Wayment have 70 × 7 or 77 times at Matt. 18:22?  I hope the latter.

How does Wayment translate Matt. 1:25a? An important and tricky one.

I see that the NKJV has "kept her a virgin" in its notes (the literal Greek?), but kept the verb know: "did not know her".

The JST additions are valuable, but besides that, most of the effort Wayment put in was probably already available in other prominent newer biblical versions.

Quote

Bradley:

The preface is written when the Book of Mormon is starting to go to the press, and it’s one of the very first things that’s going to be typeset. Joseph doesn’t have a lot of time to come up with this preface to explain things, so again, I think he’s oversimplifying. So again, 116 pages just happens to be the length of the small plates that replaces the lost manuscript in the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

What it looks like is that Joseph probably doesn’t know how many pages were in the lost manuscript. It probably wasn’t paginated. He’s trying to give a rough estimate of the length without knowing how long it was. How is he going to do that? He looks at the replacement for the lost manuscript and says, “It’s probably about as long as its replacement,” and gives it the number of 116 pages, just like that manuscript.

@clarkgoble, according to Skousen (1994:136-37), P was only 24 pages long in August 1829.

Skousen (2001:33) concludes that Joseph and Martin probably numbered the 1828 dictation pages, because both O and P were numbered.

Most of the 1830 preface is section 10 language, first set down in writing in April 1829.  So Joseph wasn't coming up with brand new language for the preface in July or August 1829.  He just needed to rework that earlier language, or perhaps the preface was a further revelation, an expansion of the earlier revelation.

On 6/19/2019 at 12:04 AM, clarkgoble said:

we're missing the 116 pages (which Don Bradley suggests might be of significant length in terms of percentage of the whole - perhaps as much as half).

Where does Bradley suggest this?  Simple calculations point to about 25 percent of the whole, not 50 percent.

Maybe you didn't read pages 136 to 137 above. There Skousen plainly wrote in 1994 that the number 116 couldn't have come from the number of pages in P of the small plates section, because when 116 was first typeset for the preface in August 1829, P didn't even have 116 pages yet. The matching numbers are just a coincidence.

Here Metcalfe made a mistake (in note 1).

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Don't know, but it is an easy comparison to make at any time in 1829-1830 directly from the Printer's MS.

Well, after checking a few things, an explanation based on the length of Psp doesn't work chronologically. See pp. 136-37 here.

Thanks for the response.  Do we know the first time 116 was mentioned as the number of lost pages?  Was it before JS–History 1832?

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed the point that we have only one piece of evidence as to how many pages probably constituted the lost book of Lehi, and that is the 1829 Printer's Manuscript which covers the same period and  has 116 pages.  That is where the count comes from.  Since the book of Lehi translation is not available, we cannot check it to see how many numbered pages it contains.

Wait a second, we have a lot of the original MS for the small plates section, enough to estimate the number of pages from that as well.  What is that number? 

How do we know Joseph wrote 116 in 1832 based on the printer's MS?  Or is it just speculation?  And why wouldn't he have used the original MS to estimate the number?

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed the point that we have only one piece of evidence as to how many pages probably constituted the lost book of Lehi, and that is the 1829 Printer's Manuscript which covers the same period and  has 116 pages.  That is where the count comes from.  Since the book of Lehi translation is not available, we cannot check it to see how many numbered pages it contains.

That's my question. Who first indicated that 116 is an estimate based on the printer's MS?

On 6/19/2019 at 12:23 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the number "116" is actually only an estimate based on the number of pages in the replacement Small Plates translation known from the numbered-page Printer's Manuscript.  Could have been much more.

Well, I see it's in the 1832 history as a specific reference, and I see that 116 goes up to Words of Mormon in the printer's manuscript. So did Joseph Smith estimate that? Where did you read it was only an estimate?

53 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man

It really has nothing to say about the issues in bold.

Quote

This method of using biblical literature (including the prophets) can be seen as similar to the work Joseph Smith performed in creating a new expanded canon based upon the Bible.

This leaves the strong impression that Joseph authored the Book of Mormon, which is of course the only acceptable view in the academic community, but nevertheless extremely unlikely. Rather than appealing to the academic community, Bokovoy would be better served in the long run appealing to God, which is also the accurate approach.

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Example:  disobeying US law by overstaying work or school visas or simply ignoring the border, then stealing social security numbers and identities in order to work or obtain benefits is gross violation not of mere precatory laws, but rather of moral and ethical strictures necessary to a civil society.  I still await clarification of the Church's winking at thieves' violations of these moral and ethical strictures.

You raise an interesting question, worthy of a thread. Yes, what is the position of our leaders on these matters?

As pertains to this thread, how about some public statements by our leaders on radical abortion.

On 5/30/2019 at 3:57 PM, The Nehor said:

The major moves banning immigrants came in the xenophobia and isolationism that followed the First World War.

Throwing around the term xenophobia is lame. All countries limit immigration and so anyone could call all countries xenophobic. Your position of virtually unlimited immigration is insane. You must care nothing about fiscal sanity or avoiding the disruption of many things like schools, public health, jails, hospitals, etc.

On 5/30/2019 at 11:07 AM, The Nehor said:

Too much too fast would dilute our ideological purity.

Nehor, you're exposing the fact that you're approaching this like an ideologue. Respecting unalienable rights and sound governing principles isn't a case of trying to maintain ideological purity. It's a case of trying to avoid falling into a worse governing system.

JarMan, a lot of these just sound like what one expects to see in many relatively advanced human civilizations.