The Most Correct Book On Earth

[wes]

If the Book of Mormon was and is the "most correct book on earth" as stated by Joseph Smith, then why have so many changes been made to it over the years?

[Zakuska]

If the Book of Mormon was and is the "most correct book on earth" as stated by Joseph Smith, then why have so many changes been made to it over the years?

Yet even the very book never claims to be error free...

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heavenâ??Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off foreverâ??And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nationsâ??And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

My question is... why have entire books been removed from the "Innerrant Bible"? Why does Jeremiah claim the scribes had tampered with the text... Jer 8:8?

[CMZ]

Despite the few spelling and grammatical changes it has undergone it has never been anything less than a superb witness for the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[wes]

Yet even the very book never claims to be error free...

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heavenâ??Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off foreverâ??And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nationsâ??And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

My question is... why have entire books been removed from the "Innerrant Bible"?

Well, for one thing, not all Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant. Secondly, Joseph Smith is the one who said it was the most correct book on earth. Such a statement implies a lot especially in light of the 8th article of Mormon faith which says the following: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

[CMZ]

Well, for one thing, not all Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant. Secondly, Joseph Smith is the one who said it was the most correct book on earth. Such a statement implies a lot especially in light of the 8th article of Mormon faith which says the following: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Uh huh, and God's word can still shine though a book where a few slight revisions have been made.

[Zakuska]

Well, for one thing, not all Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant. Secondly, Joseph Smith is the one who said it was the most correct book on earth. Such a statement implies a lot especially in light of the 8th article of Mormon faith which says the following: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Not really... since even He revised the book in later printings. "Most correct" does not mean perfect and error free.

[wes]

Despite the few spelling and grammatical changes it has undergone it has never been anything less than a superb witness for the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Like the "minor" change in 2 Nephi 30:6 which used to read "white and delightsome" and is now "pure and delightsome."

[Scott Gordon]

Read through this article. It may help you understand this issue better:

Case for Historicity

[wes]

Not really... since even He revised the book in later printings. "Most correct" does not mean perfect and error free.

How convenient.

[CMZ]

Like the "minor" change in 2 Nephi 30:6 which used to read "white and delightsome" and is now "pure and delightsome."

Uh huh. I have a copy which says one and another copy which uses the other word. God's word is in both. I also have an old Bible printed in the 60's by a non-LDS printer and in one instance where a verse uses the word "white" its correlating footnote says that the word "pure" could be used in its place.

[wes]

Read through this article. It may help you understand this issue better:

Case for Historicity

This link does not work.

[Zakuska]

Like the "minor" change in 2 Nephi 30:6 which used to read "white and delightsome" and is now "pure and delightsome."

Why would this be considered a change when the 1840 edition reads "pure and delightsome"?

Kind of reminds me what Modern Bible translators are doing with the text of the Bible.

[wes]

Uh huh. I have a copy which says one and another copy which uses the other word. God's word is in both. I also have an old Bible printed in the 60's by a non-LDS printer and in one instance where a verse uses the word "white" its correlating footnote says that the word "pure" could be used in its place.

So why was this change made if the translation by JS was perfect?

[Zakuska]

So why was this change made if the translation by JS was perfect?

The only one claiming that the Translation BY JS was "Perfect" is you wes.

[CMZ]

So why was this change made if the translation by JS was perfect?

Apparently you haven't been reading this whole thread. Speaking of this particular instance the Church came right out and said what it was doing and didn't hide anything because there's nothing to hide or to be squirrely about.

[MormonMason]

If the Book of Mormon was and is the "most correct book on earth" as stated by Joseph Smith, then why have so many changes been made to it over the years?

The vast majority of the changes and kinds of changes that were made to it were made by Joseph Smith by 1840. Joseph Smith made the claim concerning the correctness of the Book of Mormon in 1841.

As to those changes that came afterward and those that will come shortly, it is because it has been found that no published, printed edition yet agrees with the content of the manuscripts and published editions edited by Joseph Smith himself, and that changes authorized by Joseph Smith were not fully carried out at that time. This will be changing in the near future. I look forward to it.

[Zakuska]

The vast majority of the changes and kinds of changes that were made to it were made by Joseph Smith by 1840. Joseph Smith made the claim concerning the correctness of the Book of Mormon in 1841.

As to those changes that came afterward and those that will come shortly, it is because it has been found that no published, printed edition yet agrees with the content of the manuscripts and published editions edited by Joseph Smith himself, and that changes authorized by Joseph Smith were not fully carried out at that time. This will be changing in the near future. I look forward to it.

Yep and the 1840 edition that JS edited reads "Pure and Delightsome". I think that about wraps up this bunny trail. Next...

[wes]

The only one claiming that the Translation BY JS was "Perfect" is you wes.

Actually, the following statement by Martin Harris from The Millenial Star seems to indicate that it was a perfect translation:

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, â??Written,â? and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

[CMZ]

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

I'll personally leave one more post for the troll. It is because Joseph Smith's original translation and every subsequent edition has been the word of God. The slight changes that have been made have never diluted its power as the word of God. I too am looking forward to a future edition which should be the best printed one ever, thanks to Royal Skousen and crew.

[Zakuska]

Actually, the following statement by Martin Harris from The Millenial Star seems to indicate that it was a perfect translation:

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

Apparently the Urim and Thummim lacked a spell check feature... Have you seen some of the original manuscripts of Joseph's Scribes. They spelled worse than I do. But they did alot better than the bible scribes. Nice try but you'll have to do better than assert something that the evidence doesn't support.

http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/T...mOfTheBible.htm

[MormonMason]

Actually, the following statement by Martin Harris from The Millenial Star seems to indicate that it was a perfect translation:

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, â??Written,â? and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

No translation into English from another language can ever be perfect--end of story.

In addition, look to the historical context, which you keep ignoring, wes.

Joseph Smith made the claim about the correctness of the Book of Mormon in 1841. The vast majority of the changes, including those that appeared in the most recent edition, were made by 1840. Note the years and note also the full meaning and construct of the phraseology by Joseph Smith in the claim to which you allude. Your continual stepping around these makes you look a bit...well...ignorant.

[wes]

Apparently the Urim and Thummim lacked a spell check feature... Have you seen some of the original manuscripts of Joseph's Scribes. They spelled worse than I do. Nice try but you'll have to do better than assert something that the evidence doesn't support.

Sorry but that does not answer the question I asked.

[MormonMason]

...

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

It is because the Bible has been hacked to pieces and rewritten over the centuries and the Book of Mormon has not. End of story.

My I suggest you study a bit into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek New Testament manuscripts? There are far more variants than evangelicals have been willing to admit in the divergent texts, no two of which are alike.

[Zakuska]

Sorry but that does not answer the question I asked.

Just because you don't like the answer I gave.

[wes]

While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can tell me why the 1st edition said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor but in the 2nd edition he was listed as translator?