Editorial Change in the BoM Viewed through a Hebrew lense.

[LinuxGal]

All other biblical names are reproduced according to the KJV's convention, so why should Jesus Christ be any different?

Because there are other Yeshuas in the Bible including Yeshua bin Nun, who is the subject of the Book of Joshua, as well as one who is the son of the high priest and another one who is the son of Josedech. So when we get to Mormon 2:6, which reads "And we marched forth and came to the land of Joshua, which was in the borders west by the seashore." JS should have translated that "the land of Jesus".

[volgadon]

YEHOSHUA bin-Nun, not Yeshua. I know the Greek doesn't differentiate.

[LinuxGal]

YEHOSHUA bin-Nun, not Yeshua. I know the Greek doesn't differentiate.

Yeshua was a late-Hebrew shortening of the early-Hebrew name Yehoshua, and it was the name his contemporaries actually called him. In Nehemiah 8:17 the short form Yeshua is used about Yehoshua bin Nun (Moses' padawan learner Joshua) showing that the names are all essentially the same even as languages shift.

Nehemiah 8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.

[volgadon]

Nehemiah was not his contemporary. Be that as it may, never do we see Jesus called Yehoshua. That the shortened form of Yehoshua could be Yeshuua does not mean that it is always the exact same name as Yeshua.

[maklelan]

Nehemiah was not his contemporary. Be that as it may, never do we see Jesus called Yehoshua. That the shortened form of Yehoshua could be Yeshuua does not mean that it is always the exact same name as Yeshua.

Really it's just the removal of the theophoric element. The common shortening of these kinds of names is from yeho- to yo-. No other name that I'm aware of takes the next step to ye-. Yeshua just means "salvation." The Masoretic vocalization seems to be trying to mitigate that.

[pcarthew]

We'll see. I'll keep asking questions until I complete my study of the Book of Mormon (probably about three months from now), but I predict that I will be anathematized from here for contentiousness well before that happens.

I am glad you are studying the Book of Mormon. Focus on Moroni 10:4-5, it brings light and truth. It is unique in scripture, it truly deserves the test. The BOM is an incredible volume of scripture and when accepted for what it is and claims to be...it is personally enabling beyond belief. Enjoy your study it is a marvelous and beautiful book, which in my very humble opinion is nothing short of a miracle.

[LinuxGal]

I am glad you are studying the Book of Mormon. Focus on Moroni 10:4-5, it brings light and truth. It is unique in scripture, it truly deserves the test. The BOM is an incredible volume of scripture and when accepted for what it is and claims to be...it is personally enabling beyond belief. Enjoy your study it is a marvelous and beautiful book, which in my very humble opinion is nothing short of a miracle.

Moroni 10:4-5 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

He is asking that the seeker rely on an interior emotion to verify the truth value of the records. Because that inner assurance, he says, if it comes, is the gift of God, and here Moroni channels the apostle Paul's dissertation on the fruits of the spirit found in 1 Corinthians 12. Except that he differs from Paul in that Paul said that faith was the gift of God (as he also does in Ephesians 2:9) but Moroni says only that great faith is the gift of God, which seems to leave open the door for the doctrine that a basic faith is of ourselves.

Failing that, Moroni recommends we accept what he says in the records is true now, because it will save a lot of grief when we see Moroni in heaven and God says, "Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?" So he pretty much closes the Book of Mormon with Pascal's Wager, which reduces faith to nothing more than a risk-benefit calculation from game theory.

[volgadon]

Is not intellectual conviction an interior emotion, orr at least an interior process?

[maklelan]

Moroni 10:4-5 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

He is asking that the seeker rely on an interior emotion to verify the truth value of the records.

This conclusion presupposes that revelation on the matter is impossible. That's fine if you're just looking at it from an academic point of view, but not if you're trying to engage the actual theurgy of the author. It seems to me that you're trying to do the latter, since you're treatises have been attempts to delineate, albeit through rather reductive means, the theology of the Book of Mormon.

Because that inner assurance, he says, if it comes, is the gift of God, and here Moroni channels the apostle Paul's dissertation on the fruits of the spirit found in 1 Corinthians 12

1 Corinthians 12 deals with the gifts of the spirit, not the fruits of the spirit. For the latter in the Pauline corpus, you go either to Galatians 5 or Ephesians 5. Moroni gets into the gifts of the spirit with vv. 8-19.

Except that he differs from Paul in that Paul said that faith was the gift of God (as he also does in Ephesians 2:9) but Moroni says only that great faith is the gift of God, which seems to leave open the door for the doctrine that a basic faith is of ourselves.

See Moroni 7.

Failing that, Moroni recommends we accept what he says in the records is true now, because it will save a lot of grief when we see Moroni in heaven and God says, "Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?" So he pretty much closes the Book of Mormon with Pascal's Wager, which reduces faith to nothing more than a risk-benefit calculation from game theory.

You're beginning to sound like an undergraduate eager to relate everything you see to something you've recently picked up in some intro to philosophy or theology class. Paschal's Wager is completely and totally unrelated. It holds that the reality of God cannot be determined, but that living as if he did exist leaves us with everything to gain and nothing to lose. Moroni, on the other hand, declares without a hint of equivocation that God exists and that you can know that he does through revelation. He states very clearly that his exhortations are to fulfill prophecies (v. 28), and that God will make the truth of what he has said known (v. 29). This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Paschal's Wager.

[WalkerW]

You're beginning to sound like an undergraduate eager to relate everything you see to something you've recently picked up in some intro to philosophy or theology class.

One of the best observations in this forum.

[Olavarria]

I was thinking; if it wasnt for the fact that Joseph had studied some Hebrew during 1836, this would have a sweet apologetic application.