Another Question On Inerrancy?

[inquiringmind]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

Edited September 6, 2011 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

Nothing done by humans is inerrant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

No were did JS claim that his inspired version was perfect let alone complete. If such a statement was made then you might have 1/2 a point. However, as others pointed out, nothing done by humans is inerrant because we are imperfect.

[JAHS]

From what I understand Joseph Smith did not have time to really proof read his manuscript of his translation and bring it to completion so at least for that reason it probably cannot be considered innerrant.

[Zakuska]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

From what I've found... many of the minor changes made in the JST (except for the long expositions etc.) weren't made by JS, but were made by the Phinney Bible translators.

As ERayR said... nothing is inerrant when Humans are involved. Check out what Moroni said on the cover page of the BOM:

\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 heaven—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 forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—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. Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[inquiringmind]

But in the same passage where Moroni says that if there are errors in the BOM, they're the errors of men, doesn't he also say that if his people could have written in Hebrew there would have been no errors?

How could he say this if nothing done by men is inerrant?

(And is Hebrew really so much more expressive and precise than other languages, that the BOM would have been inerrant if only it could have been written in Hebrew?)

Edited September 6, 2011 by inquiringmind

[etana]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

The JST is not inerrant.

[Zakuska]

But in the same passage where Moroni says that if there are errors in the BOM, they're the errors of men, doesn't he also say that if his people could have written in Hebrew there would have been no errors?

How could he say this if nothing done by men is inerrant?

(And is Hebrew really so much more expressive and precise than other languages, that the BOM would have been inerrant if only it could have been written in Hebrew?)

inquiringmind,

How could that be true when even Jeremiah himself claims the scribes before his day had screwed up the scriptures?

Jer 8

⁸ “‘How can you say, “We are wise,

for we have the law of the LORD,”

when actually the lying pen of the scribes

has handled it falsely?

So... the Hebrew texts on the Brass Plates Nephi took from Laban when they left from Jerusalem can't be said to be inerrant either.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Zakuska

[zerinus]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

It all depends what you mean by "inerrant". If you mean that there cannot be a misprint in it or a spelling mistake in it, then nothing is inerrant. But that is not how the scriptures themselves define inerrancy. The word "inerrant" doesn't occur in scripture, but the concept of it does. And what it means is that, if heeded, it is an unfailing guide to eternal life. Here is the reference:

1 Nephi 15

:

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they

would

never

perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction

.

It doesn't make any exceptions. It doesn't say that it works for some people, but not for others. It doesn't even say that it works for most people, but not for a small minority. The rule is applied unconditionally to all without exception. That is what inerrancy means, in scriptural terms. In that sense of the term, all scripture as dictated by the Holy Ghost is inerrant. That is equally applicable to the JST.

[CV75]

But in the same passage where Moroni says that if there are errors in the BOM, they're the errors of men, doesn't he also say that if his people could have written in Hebrew there would have been no errors?

How could he say this if nothing done by men is inerrant?

(And is Hebrew really so much more expressive and precise than other languages, that the BOM would have been inerrant if only it could have been written in Hebrew?)

Mormon 9:33, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.”

I understand he is saying 1) their Hebrew was altered Hebrew, not the “original” unaltered version, and 2) if they had written in this altered Hebrew (which may have been more perfect, at least in his assessment, than the unaltered version in expressing themselves they way they wanted to) there would have been no encumbrances to their self-expression and they thus would have expressed themselves to their satisfaction (which by virtue of being human, is imperfect).

[zerinus]

(And is Hebrew really so much more expressive and precise than other languages, that the BOM would have been inerrant if only it could have been written in Hebrew?)

He is contrasting Hebrew with Reformed Egyptian. He is saying that the former is more expressive than the latter.

[Mudcat]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

Bold mine. I think it's a good topic.

I am doubtful you'll find an LDS responder on the forum that would be in agreement that the JST is without error. For one, I don't think it was ever claimed that it was complete.

However, the concept of incompletion is not by virtue also imperfect. In example, a pianist, could have perfectly learned the first half of a really nice piano piece like, the piano sonata no. 23 in F minor "Appassionata" by Ludwig Van Beethoven. Because the second half remains unlearned, doesn't implicate the learned first half is going to be imperfectly played.

IIRC, the CoJCoLDS does endorse portions of the JST in footnotes to their KJV. In this sense, I would think the authorization of such portions is about all there is to specific sorts of discussion.

However, I think that brings the deeper question to bear. Are JS's ammendments to the KJV more correct than the KJV, and if so why?

... Not my thread though and I don't want to intrude. Just a thought.

That aside, IMO LDS are challenged with acceptance of the JST as "perfect" for a number of reasons.

R.J. Matthews offers his rationale for such in a "New Era" article here.

As I am an non-LDS Christian, I don't speak for LDS on the matter, but one of the things I would find most challenging as treating the JST as "perfect" has to do with examples like Mark 16:17-18 and how well it agrees with Mormon 9:24. Many who have studied the formation of the Biblical canon seem to recognize that Mark 16's ending from verse 9 on were more likely an addition to the text, but JS blazes past the error for some reason. In some respects it could be seen as error affirming on his part. Certainly leaves more than a bit of room for speculation on the matter IMO.. and I have my own.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Calm]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

Info on the JST, though not answering your question but just in case you haven't read it yet :

http://lds.org/ensig...stored?lang=eng

Edited September 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[Whiskeypete]

If one of the authors (ie, Mormon) made a mistake in his abridgment (lets say, perhaps, he got the name of a king wrong and called him Benjamin instead of Mosiah) what would be the correct translation? Should Joseph Smith, as an inspired translator, translate it as Benjamin or Mosiah?

Is an inerrant translation one that retains the original mistake, or one that corrects it?

[zerinus]

If one of the authors (ie, Mormon) made a mistake in his abridgment (lets say, perhaps, he got the name of a king wrong and called him Benjamin instead of Mosiah) what would be the correct translation? Should Joseph Smith, as an inspired translator, translate it as Benjamin or Mosiah?

Is an inerrant translation one that retains the original mistake, or one that corrects it?

It is worth considering how an “uninspired” translator might handle such a situation. If I were translating something, and came across a similar situation such as you describe, I would resolve it with the help of a footnote. I would add a footnote at that point and say, this is what the manuscript says, but based on such and such evidence it is apparent that the original writer had made a mistake, and the correct reading should be thus and so.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, since it was the Lord who was ultimately in charge of the process, and Joseph Smith couldn’t have known anything without the Lord revealing it to him, the question is not so much how Joseph Smith should have handled such a situation, but how the Lord would have done so; and since Joseph Smith has said that it is not the will of the Lord to reveal how the translation was done, your question is at best only of academic interest. The Lord has testified that the Book is true (D&C 17:6); and that is all that matters. We take the Lord at His word.

My own speculative opinion, however, would be that the Lord would have had at least as much integrity as an “uninspired” translator would have had, and would have inspired Joseph Smith to correct such an error in the translation process if it had occurred.

[Zakuska]

My own speculative opinion, however, would be that the Lord would have had at least as much integrity as an “uninspired” translator would have had, and would have inspired Joseph Smith to correct such an error in the translation process if it had occurred.

If this were the case then when the sealed portion is finally opened and revealed all the critics would say... "See Ole Joe really was a baffoon and couldn't translate anything correctly."

[zerinus]

If this were the case then when the sealed portion is finally opened and revealed all the critics would say... "See Ole Joe really was a baffoon and couldn't translate anything correctly."

Why should that be? I am not following you.

[Zakuska]

Why should that be? I am not following you.

It was meant more tongue in cheek than anything.

But... I can just see them now getting the plates and comparing Josephs translation with their translation and telling us how wrong he got everything.

[volgadon]

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

You are assuming that this means a written text.

[Storm Rider]

I've been told that Mormons don't believe in inerrancy, but isn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible inerrant?

I mean, if the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," and Joseph was inspired to translate it correctly, doesn't it follow that the JST is inerrant?

I think you might be thinking of things in a strictly black and white perspective. If you read the introduction to the Book of Mormon, Joseph clearly states that the errors if found are the work of men, which is essentially the same thing as saying "as far as it is translated correctly" about the Bible.

At present only an ignorant man would think the Bible as it currents reads is without error is just as ignorant about the findings of textual critics for the last 20 years. LDS have often heard the statement that the BofM is the most correct of all the books and critics have used this phrase, but twisted its meaning. The Book of Mormon teaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ; in this sense alone is it the most correct of all the books ever written at present.

LDS are disciples of truth; our entire belief system is dependent upon personal, modern day revelation. We are to seek truth in all things and hold to it. In this capacity we are not as concerned about grammatical errors, mistakes in place names, etc. We are focused on eternal truths that enlighten our souls, we seek the virtuous, lovely, or those that are of good report or praiseworthy. Does this make sense to you?

[zerinus]

You are assuming that this means a written text.

Primarily yes. It means both, written and unwritten text. But primarily it means written text:

2 Nephi 31

:

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward,

feasting upon the word of Christ,

and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

“Feasting” suggests a ready prepared meal, which implies something that is already written down, and you have immediate access to.

2 Nephi 29:

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall

write it.

2 Nephi 33

:

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to

write these things,

notwithstanding my weakness.

The words of God are always written down.

Mosiah 18

:

19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and

which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

D&C 52

:

9 And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way, saying

none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written,

and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.

The teaching, preaching, and “feasting” are all based on that which had been written. Other elements come into it as well, but that is where the primary focus is.

Edited September 11, 2011 by zerinus

[volgadon]

Primarily yes. It means both, written and unwritten text. But primarily it means written text:

2 Nephi 31

:

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward,

feasting upon the word of Christ,

and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

“Feasting” suggests a ready prepared meal, which implies something that is already written down, and you have immediate access to.

To feast upon something refers to attitude. Otherwise to eat would have sufficed.

2 Nephi 29:

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall

write it;

and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall

write it.

2 Nephi 33

:

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to

write these things,

notwithstanding my weakness.

The words of God are always written down.

Oh, really?

"And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,

And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.

And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not."

-Revelation 10:1-4.

Mosiah 18

:

19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and

which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

How does this show that the "word of God" means a written text?

D&C 52

:

9 And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way, saying

none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written,

and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.

The teaching, preaching, and “feasting” are all based on that which had been written. Other elements come into it as well, but that is where the primary focus is.

If you look at how the phrase is used in the Bible (Jer. 1:11, Ezek. 18:1 for instance) you will see that it is not a written text, but an instruction, commandment or oracle of God.

[mnn727]

all scripture as dictated by the Holy Ghost is inerrant.

Since no scripture was done by dictation then nothing is inerrant.

[zerinus]

Since no scripture was done by dictation then nothing is inerrant.

All scripture is dictated by the Holy Ghost, without exception.