Is The Translation Of The Bible Inspired?

[Paul D]

A young man in my ward advanced from Primary to the Aaronic Priesthood. He recited the Article of Faith that declares that we Mormons accept the Bible as it is translated correctly.

That got me thinking. Do traditional Christians believe that the Bible -- in this case English -- are inspired translations. Do they believe that every word was inspired, the grammar, the spelling, the history, the numbers, etc.

What exactly is inspired about the transmission of the Bible from the original.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Six

Only the original texts are inspired. Nevertheless, that does not mean that subsequent English translations of those texts, which have been true to the originals and their copies, are any less authoritative for Christian faith and practice. In the words of F. F. Bruce,

Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.â??F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 2000), 19-20.

[e=mc2]

Jason H:

How do you deal with the fact that elohim in Mormonism is not a general name for divine beings, but its actually the personal name of God the Father? The same tradition that referred to divine beings as elohim also referred to God the Father as El Elyon or simply El.

Where is that in Mormonism?

I think some thinking within Mormonism has been overly simplistic, as it is in all religions. It's kinda nice to know at least we are working on correcting this though......

[Bsix]

It is my impression that the traditional Christians who are participating so far do not think the translations are inspired...nor is that important.

Take the Trinity for example. It seems to be that one of the foundational doctrines of traditional Christianity rests, in large part, on carefully parsed application of nuanced Bible passages. This rests in part on the acceptance of how accurate passages such as John 1 and 1 John 5:7.

If that is true, believing that passages like these are translated with spiritual reliability are important.

For example, is the translation of John 1:1-4 is correct...inspired...or does it not make a difference?

Is the position that the standard trinitarian rendering of John 1 is uninspired...but that doesn't matter?

Regards,

Six

[rameumptom]

You have to understand that biblical inerrancy is a relatively recent innovation in Christian thought (the earliest Christians seemed to have had no problems living without it). And it has gone through many variations over the past few centuries. At this point it is pretty much rejected by most Christian scholars (at least in the strict sense in which LDS apologists like to present it).

But the LDS are the ones with the burden of proof here. A fundamental premise of the restored Gospel is that Mormon truths were lost in translations. That is one of the purposes for a modern- prophet, to â??restoreâ? them. Given the quantum leaps in textual criticism since the restoration, we should expect to see various proofs pointing to Mormon doctrines that were once lost.

Yet, thus far nobody has provided an unambiguous example.

You want unambiguous? How about hundreds of scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were definitely considered sacred and legitimate writings. The Temple Scroll, Community Rule, and others were closely adhered to as scriptural. Then, the Enoch fragments have the name Mahujah, which is also found in the LDS Book of Moses as a place Enoch travels to and talks with a man Mahijah. coincidence? Or is it the unambiguous evidence every hollers for, but never bothers reading what the LDS are demonstrating? BTW, that bit of evidence was uncovered by Hugh Nibley about 20 years ago, and shared in his book Enoch the Prophet. If nobody has provided an unambiguous example so far, it is obviously because you were either asking the wrong people, or you are very strict in your definition of the term, unambiguous.

Can we prove that books are lost? Of course we can. The Bible mentions over a dozen books that are not in it. Jude quotes from Enoch's writings, but we do not find them in the Bible. Matthew quotes a few prophecies that Jesus fulfills, which are not in our Old Testament. They obviously were important enough to Matthew to include them, even if we do not now have them.

Early Christian and Christian-Gnostic writings include many LDS beliefs, including: baptism for the dead, a connection between marriage and the temple (Gospel of Phillip), the Spirit World (Gospel of Nicodemus), and multiple levels of salvation/heaven (the Shepherd of Hermes).

How's that for an unambiguous set of examples for you to start with?

[rameumptom]

Let me add a link to Barry Bickmore - Restoring the Ancient Church, where he discusses dozens of examples of lost teachings that were restored by the LDS Church.

If those who think we've been ambiguous about our claims would take the time to research what we've said and written in the past, I think they'd actually realize that we've been very precise and unambiguous on many issues. So unambiguous that Barry was kind enough to share his book online for free, so that more people could see the evidences without buying his book (I have my hard copy, and it was well worth the expenditure).

[e=mc2]

And today's scholar, many ofthem, are now questioning the actual CANON itself....... it is NOT inspired, and we need to redo it. Now thatbarn door has been closed for an awful looooooong time! But serious scholars are now asserting its time to give us an "updated" canon that suits our times better, by getting RID OF THE APOCALYPTIC parts of the canon, i.e., the book of Revelation, the letters of Peter, Jude, etc. What an astonishing development in thinking now!

[Sargon]

I have been studying a bit about the documentary hypothesis, and I have found it just fascinating. What LDS commentaries or papers are available to get a LDS perspective on this subject?

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on the Documentary Hypothesis a few years ago is just pure FABULOUS reading.

[Sargon]

Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on the Documentary Hypothesis a few years ago is just pure FABULOUS reading.

Any idea where I can find that online?

[JasonH]

Elohim comes from El, which was the earliest known reference to God in Ancient Israel. But it goes back even further as a divine name used by those before Israel. So if Joseph Smith restored this, he restored it from pre-Israelite folk religion. Never in the Bible is elohim given a unique status as it is in Mormonism. Mormons know that elohim is considered to be none other than God the Father. This is not supported in biblical scholarship. It isn't supported in the Ugaritic material either.

I think some thinking within Mormonism has been overly simplistic, as it is in all religions. It's kinda nice to know at least we are working on correcting this though......

You mean Mormons are in the transition process of referring to God as El ELyon?

[urroner]

Elohim comes from El, which was the earliest known reference to God in Ancient Israel. But it goes back even further as a divine name used by those before Israel. So if Joseph Smith restored this, he restored it from pre-Israelite folk religion. Never in the Bible is elohim given a unique status as it is in Mormonism. Mormons know that elohim is considered to be none other than God the Father. This is not supported in biblical scholarship. It isn't supported in the Ugaritic material either.

You mean Mormons are in the transition process of referring to God as El ELyon?

Elohim and Jehovah are used in the CoJCoLDS to distinguish between our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. There have been times when the names were interchangeable, but the former has been a rather recent development, within the last 100 years or so. Also, like I said earlier, elohim is also used to denote members of the Council of God which is mentioned several time in the OT and also in the NT.

El is a semitic word for God from what I understand, but my expertise in the semitic languages is worse than my expertise in ancient Greek and that is nil.

El Elyon is simply a title meaning the Most High God. Now if there is a Most High God, are the any real Gods/gods that are not as high?

[SolarPowered]

Elohim and Jehovah are used in the CoJCoLDS to distinguish between our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. There have been times when the names were interchangeable, but the former has been a rather recent development, within the last 100 years or so. Also, like I said earlier, elohim is also used to denote members of the Council of God which is mentioned several time in the OT and also in the NT.

El is a semitic word for God from what I understand, but my expertise in the semitic languages is worse than my expertise in ancient Greek and that is nil.

I was somewhat surprised to learn this in (soon to be Dr.) Bokovoy's discussion in the latest FARMS Review. Apparently "Elohim" and "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" are not revealed names specifically for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, but are names that have been used somewhat interchangably in the past, and a decision was made in the early 1900's to standardize on the current usage.

[JasonH]

Elohim and Jehovah are used in the CoJCoLDS to distinguish between our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Right, which was my point since this designation doesn't exist in biblical scholarship. In fact, Jehovah himself is an elohim. To call the Father elohim is like me calling my father, "Human."

There have been times when the names were interchangeable, but the former has been a rather recent development, within the last 100 years or so.

Development or not, it is considered hard doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith taught this too and it has been taught at General Conferences for decades. The Church is less than 200 years old, so I wouldn't say it is really a recent teaching.

Also, like I said earlier, elohim is also used to denote members of the Council of God which is mentioned several time in the OT and also in the NT.

Right, this is common knowledge in scholarship, but this is not in LDS doctrine. It seems Mormon apologists have become fascinated with the fact that the elohim has been a hot topic as of late, but they take superficial similarities as evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling, but pay little attention to the overt discrepancies which undermine the intended hoopla. My his own admission, Joseph Smith learned the meaning of elohim from his Hebrew studies, not revelation. Whether it was he or later LDS prophets who distorted the meaning of elohim to refer to God the Father, is really irrelevant to the fact that all temple-recommend holding Mormons know how important this doctrine is. It isn't something Mormons say just for the heck of it. It is doctrine and crucial to the proper understanding of creation, at least in their eyes.

[JasonH]

I was somewhat surprised to learn this in (soon to be Dr.) Bokovoy's discussion in the latest FARMS Review. Apparently "Elohim" and "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" are not revealed names specifically for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, but are names that have been used somewhat interchangably in the past, and a decision was made in the early 1900's to standardize on the current usage.

So am I to understand that the hundred or so years of references to God as elohim is just a matter of convenience, and not intended to say something important?

You make it sound like modern prophets, who are supposed to be annointed restorers of truth - since they receive revelation in order to get doctrinal details correct - decided to throw their hands up on the matter and just settle on the elohim designantion out of convenience.

I find that hard to swallow.

CFR?

[urroner]

Right, which was my point since this designation doesn't exist in biblical scholarship. In fact, Jehovah himself is an elohim. To call the Father elohim is like me calling my father, "Human."

Development or not, it is considered hard doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith taught this too and it has been taught at General Conferences for decades. The Church is less than 200 years old, so I wouldn't say it is really a recent teaching.

Right, this is common knowledge in scholarship, but this is not in LDS doctrine. It seems Mormon apologists have become fascinated with the fact that the elohim has been a hot topic as of late, but they take superficial similarities as evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling, but pay little attention to the overt discrepancies which undermine the intended hoopla. My his own admission, Joseph Smith learned the meaning of elohim from his Hebrew studies, not revelation. Whether it was he or later LDS prophets who distorted the meaning of elohim to refer to God the Father, is really irrelevant to the fact that all temple-recommend holding Mormons know how important this doctrine is. It isn't something Mormons say just for the heck of it. It is doctrine and crucial to the proper understanding of creation, at least in their eyes.

Superficial evidence, interesting choice of words.

As far as learning things from study and not only by revelation, so you think that a prophet and anybody else for that reason, should not study to learn things about God and that God should do all the revealing with no effort to find the truth on the person's part.

Methinks you are attempting to create a tempest in a teacup. You have taken a word that has many meanings to it, and you have limited it to only one definition and demanded that we accept that definition, your definition, as the only definition. Be care when you start telling us what we do and don't believe, especially when you do it in sweeping generalization

And as far as "all temple-recommend holding Mormons know how important this doctrine is," did you ever ask me? I guess that would be all temple-recommend holding Mormons - 1. I honestly think you pull that number or statistic out of the air. I would say someplace else, but I would get slapped down silly by the mods.

So am I to understand that the hundred or so years of references to God as elohim is just a matter of convenience, and not intended to say something important?

You make it sound like modern prophets, who are supposed to be annointed restorers of truth - since they receive revelation in order to get doctrinal details correct - decided to throw their hands up on the matter and just settle on the elohim designantion out of convenience.

I find that hard to swallow.

CFR?

My little boys find it hard to swallow their medicine, but it's very good for them.

[JasonH]

Take the Trinity for example. It seems to be that one of the foundational doctrines of traditional Christianity rests, in large part, on carefully parsed application of nuanced Bible passages. This rests in part on the acceptance of how accurate passages such as John 1 and 1 John 5:7.

John 1 is hotly debated but 1 Jn 5:7 is unquestionably spurious. Only the fringe KJV-only crowd would argue otherwise. Remember, it was the Evangelical NIV which indicated its spuriousness in a footnote.

If that is true, believing that passages like these are translated with spiritual reliability are important.

But it isn't true, so it isn't important.

For example, is the translation of John 1:1-4 is correct...inspired...or does it not make a difference? Is the position that the standard trinitarian rendering of John 1 is uninspired...but that doesn't matter?

Beyond translation there remains interpretation. However it is translated, there is room to interpret it both ways. But the best case for a biblical trinity rests on the Wisdom literature. The ECF drew upon these as well as the biblical references that identify Jesus as wisdom personified. They did not rely on the Johanine comma, which is why I believe this is a straw man.

[SolarPowered]

..

[SolarPowered]

CFR?

Though Latter-day Saints view God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate divine beings, for the Saints, the biblical titles associated with these deities are clearly interchangeable. Latter-day Saints have no problem, therefore, in associating God the Father with the title Yahweh—that is, "He who causes to be" or even "He who procreates." The 1916 official declaration presented by the First Presidency of the church states "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim, is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race."36 Clearly, however, the First Presidency's move toward designating God the Father as Elohim and Jesus, the Son, as Jehovah was primarily a move by church leaders to create uniformity in Latter-day Saint expression. In a recent Ensign article, Keith Meservy observed that "in at least three Old Testament passages it appears that LORD [i.e., Jehovah] applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ: Ps. 110:1; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 53:10."37 No doubt, for many Latter-day Saints, this estimate offered by Meservy could be greatly augmented. LDS teachings, therefore, do not preclude the ontological uniqueness of God the Father that Heiser witnesses in the Hebrew Bible.

David E. Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser Concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John", The FARMS Review 19/1, 2007, pg. 282.

[JasonH]

Superficial evidence, interesting choice of words.

Superficial evidence?

The evidence is overwhelming. Elohim refers to God the Father in LDS doctrine. I can produce many references from General Conferences whereby this point is reiterated over and over. By contrast, can you refer us to similar GC statements which say elohim doesn't really or necessarily refer to God the Father? Just one would be fine.This seems to be what you are suggesting, but so far it has been supported with zero evidence. Again, CFR please.

As far as learning things from study and not only by revelation, so you think that a prophet and

anybody else for that reason, should not study to learn things about God and that God should do all the revealing with no effort to find the truth on the person's part.

I've said no such thing. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the Church has historically taught one thing about elohim - it refers to God the father's true name. This is as important as it is to know Jesus is really Jehovah. It is fundamental to the plan of salvation and knowledge about creation.

Methinks you are attempting to create a tempest in a teacup.

No, the tempest was created when LDS apologists tried to use this elohim issue to garner support for the idea that scholarship has validated Joseph Smith's ability to restore ancient truths. I'm simply letting them continue with the logic and pointing out how the connection isn't so clear. In fact, it contradicts biblical scholarship on the fundamental level.

Biblical scholarship: elohim = divine beings.

Historic/Official LDS teaching: elohim = God the Father

It is really that simple.

You have taken a word that has many meanings to it, and you have limited it to only one definition and demanded that we accept that definition, your definition, as the only definition.

This is not true at all. I am simply going by what the word means according to LDS doctrine. It is not my definition - it is the definition supplied by your LDS authorities. They have been reiterating this over and over for a century or more. One would think such repetition intended to say something important. Now i am to understand it means nothing. It was just a confusing matter that they couldn't figure out, so they got together and decided to call God elohim out of convenience.

Oh, and they forgot to tell the membership, anything about this decision.

If you think elohim has "many meanings" in Mormon teaching, then please, by all means, refer us to just one other meaning in an official teaching.

Further, assuming you have been to the temple, we both know that my case is on solid ground. God the Father is referred to as elohim over and over.

Be care when you start telling us what we do and don't believe, especially when you do it in sweeping generalization

I am telling you what the Church has taught and continues to teach. I have no idea what you believe. I simply expect you to be aware of it, and it seems you are. But you are adding a twist to it. You are now saying that the Elohim/Jehovah issue was just a trivial matter that was never considered important in LDS thought. Well, where is the evidence.. Bokovoy's latest apologetic assertion? That's it?

And as far as "all temple-recommend holding Mormons know how important this doctrine is," did you ever ask me? I guess that would be all temple-recommend holding Mormons - 1. I honestly think you pull that number or statistic out of the air. I would say someplace else, but I would get slapped down silly by the mods.

Well, I understand how sensitive temple talk is around here so I was trying to clue you in through the back door. I do not know if you have been to the temple, but if you have, then you know how important this teaching is. It is very difficult to believe that this teaching is really just a matter of convenience and not truth.

My little boys find it hard to swallow their medicine, but it's very good for them.

But I don't swallow medicine that isn't approved by the FDA. You're swallowing something you cannot make sense of. You clearly like how it tastes but that doesn't make it safe. Why would you believe elohim doesn't really refer to God the Father in LDS doctrine?

Just go to lds.org and search the word elohim and see what comes up. On after the other, each reference illustrates that there are not "many meanings" for elohim in Mormon teaching. It consistently and repeatedly refers to God the Father.

[SolarPowered]

By contrast, can you refer us to similar GC statements which say elohim doesn't really or necessarily refer to God the Father? Just one would be fine.This seems to be what you are suggesting, but so far it has been supported with zero evidence. Again, CFR please.

Such an example immediately preceeds your post. (I assume we were typing at the same time--I'm not suggesting that you simply ignored the post.)

[Neighbor]

A young man in my ward advanced from Primary to the Aaronic Priesthood. He recited the Article of Faith that declares that we Mormons accept the Bible as it is translated correctly.

That got me thinking. Do traditional Christians believe that the Bible -- in this case English -- are inspired translations. Do they believe that every word was inspired, the grammar, the spelling, the history, the numbers, etc.

What exactly is inspired about the transmission of the Bible from the original.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Six

I've heard some who use the KJV say that it is the only correct translation of the Bible. All things considered, it is to date perhaps the best English translation, but there are some controversies over newer translations textual sources and the faith held by those who translated them.

I've not heard that the translation process is inspired as those who penned the text originally.

Fact is that what God tells us in the Bible is understandable and if we were about doing what He said we would be better off.

[urroner]

I've heard some who use the KJV say that it is the only correct translation of the Bible. All things considered, it is to date perhaps the best English translation, but there are some controversies over newer translations textual sources and the faith held by those who translated them.

I've not heard that the translation process is inspired as those who penned the text originally.

Fact is that what God tells us in the Bible is understandable and if we were about doing what He said we would be better off.

Peter said that some of the things Paul said in the scriptures were hard to understand, so His word might be understandable, but not necessarily easily understood.

Also, where did God ever equate only the Bible with His word?

[JasonH]

Though Latter-day Saints view God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate divine beings, for the Saints, the biblical titles associated with these deities are clearly interchangeable.

Really? Then where are all the reference to God the Father as Jehovah? There are a few only in the Bible, which is what I suspect brought upon this ad hoc apologetic. However, none of this changes the fact that in LDS doctrine elohim refers specifically to God the Father.

Latter-day Saints have no problem, therefore, in associating God the Father with the title Yahwehâ??that is, "He who causes to be" or even "He who procreates."

It is never a problem when you're not speaking officially for the Church. But in General Conferences and in official Church magazines, elohim is identified consistently as the Father of all, and God Most High.

The 1916 official declaration presented by the First Presidency of the church states "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim, is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race." Clearly, however, the First Presidency's move toward designating God the Father as Elohim and Jesus, the Son, as Jehovah was primarily a move by church leaders to create uniformity in Latter-day Saint expression.

There is nothing "clear" about this at all since he has provided no evidence to support it. Not one single citation explaining this "move" has been presented. But the citation above clearly undermines what he is trying to argue. The citation he provides says what I have been saying all along. God the Father has the elohim "designation." Bokovoy puts the word "designate" in italics as if it somehow suggests triviality.

To designate is simply to call or name. God the Father is called elohim. Designate is as good a word as any. Why he is called elohim is not explained by the word designate. There is nothing in this citation that would support Bokovoy's theory that this designation was a matter of convenience and not doctrine.

Even Meservy, whom Bokovoy cites, explicitly declared what I have been saying here:

"Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven."

If this is the best he can come up with, then we should consider this apologetic dead in the water. So far I have been told in this thread that the word elohim has "many meanings" in LDS thought, yet the only citation that has been presented clearly says it means God the Father.

[Sleeper Cell]

You have to understand that biblical inerrancy is a relatively recent innovation in Christian thought (the earliest Christians seemed to have had no problems living without it). And it has gone through many variations over the past few centuries. At this point it is pretty much rejected by most Christian scholars (at least in the strict sense in which LDS apologists like to present it).

Is â??biblical inerrancyâ? -- in any sense of the term -- generally accepted by most Christian scholars? If so, in what sense? If not, how do most of those Christian scholars who do accept â??biblical inerrancyâ? generally define the term?

[urroner]

So far I have been told in this thread that the word elohim has "many meanings" in LDS thought, yet the only citation that has been presented clearly says it means God the Father.

Hmmm, I have told you several times that elohim also means the members of the Council of God. Did you see them and choose to ignore that or did you not see those several posts?