New International Version - 2011 Version

[volgadon]

Actually that is false. You (LDS) claim it's scripture only as far as it's correctly translated.

Can you name a group that believes a scripture if it is incorrectly translated according to their beliefs?

Edited September 9, 2011 by volgadon

[Anakin7]

Hughes,

I am just curious. According to 2 Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim slay?

Was it Goliath?

• “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV1984)

Or was it Goliath’s brother?

• “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV2011)

In your opinion, are both editions of the New International Version (1984 and 2011) correct?

Or how about these changes ebeddoulos ?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/300_changes.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited September 10, 2011 by Anakin7

[Hughes]

Hughes,

I am just curious. According to 2 Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim slay?

Was it Goliath?

• “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV1984)

Or was it Goliath’s brother?

• “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” (2 Samuel 21:19 – NIV2011)

In your opinion, are both editions of the New International Version (1984 and 2011) correct?

Your point? It appears that we have a copy error, and 2 chronicles 20:5 sorts it out. Again, your point? Copiest can make errors? No kidding. Thanks be to God that we have the ancient languages to sort things out with. Too bad we don't have reformed Egyptian texts to help us sort things out with the BoM eh? Wouldn't that be nice?

Can you name a group that believes a scripture if it is incorrectly translated according to their beliefs?

You know you're right. So, what's the point of mentioning it? Why have it as an LDS creed?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Hughes

[ebeddoulos]

Your point? It appears that we have a copy error, and 2 chronicles 20:5 sorts it out. Again, your point? Copiest can make errors? No kidding.

Hughes, The point is that just like the Latter-day Saints, you believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Have a cookie!

[Zakuska]

Hughes, The point is that just like the Latter-day Saints, you believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Have a cookie!

Well Hughes could have told you that, check out his codified Bible creed... The Chicago Statement on Bible Innerrancy

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Zakuska

[ebeddoulos]

Well Hughes could have told you that, check out his codified Bible creed... The Chicago Statement on Bible Innerrancy

You are right of course. It does not hurt to remind them though, that the only place you can find an autographic text of Scriptures is in the Celestial Museum of Religious Artifacts. I have it on good authority that they are in the same exhibit area as the golden plates of Book of Mormon fame.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

Hughes, The point is that just like the Latter-day Saints, you believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Have a cookie!

When LDS say things that sound like what evangelicals say, the reality is that they often mean something very different. Such is the case here. The point is easily demonstrated by the very source that Zakuska quoted selectively, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Zakuska quoted only this part:

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

The above is the first part of article X of the Statement. The second part of article X states:

"We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."

The difference between the LDS and evangelical views is vast. For Mormons, the absence of the autographs means that the Bible's dominant theological outlook is suspect. It is what allows many Mormons to argue that the "Deuteronomic" theology that dominates the Old Testament suppressed an earlier polytheistic religion more like that of the LDS religion. It is what allows Mormons potentially to reject what any biblical text says that contradicts LDS doctrine on the grounds that the text may not have been "translated" accurately--even if there is no manuscript support for a different wording or any linguistic support for a different translation. It is what justifies for Mormons the numerous revisions to the KJV Bible that Joseph Smith made in his "translation." Notice the statement--which Zakuska quoted but about which he made no comment--that the autographic text of Scripture "in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." For evangelicals, as this statement indicates, the qualification that inspiration applies strictly speaking to the autographs of Scripture means that we must do our best through textual criticism to establish what the original text said as far as possible and to base our understanding of Scripture on that critically established text. Evangelicals reject the claim that the present texts of the Bible are woefully incomplete, theologically untrustworthy, or requiring new revelations to be corrected or completed.

By the way, the presupposition of article X of the Chicago Statement is that we do in fact have original-language copies of the books of Scripture and can compare them to determine with a high degree of accuracy what the original wording of those books was. This is obviously not true for the Book of Mormon, and is if anything highly problematic for the Book of Abraham, for which we do have at least some of the original manuscript but which turns out to be something entirely different than the Book of Abraham. So Mormons really cannot affirm article X as an accurate statement about Scripture, even if they can agree with parts of the article with regard to the Bible.

[Vance]

We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Inerrancy is simply an "assertion". Got it.

For Mormons, the absence of the autographs means that the Bible's dominant theological outlook is suspect.

Nah, it is the APOSTASY that makes the orthodox intrepretation of the Bible suspect (or wrong, if you prefer).

It is what allows many Mormons to argue that the "Deuteronomic" theology that dominates the Old Testament suppressed an earlier polytheistic religion more like that of the LDS religion.

The fact that modern Hebrew Bible scholarship lends support for LDS doctrine is interesting, but not pivotal.

It is what allows Mormons potentially to reject what any biblical text says that contradicts LDS doctrine on the grounds that the text may not have been "translated" accurately--even if there is no manuscript support for a different wording or any linguistic support for a different translation.

Whereas, when what it says disagrees with evangelical theology, evangelicals simply say that it doesn't mean what it says.

It is what justifies for Mormons the numerous revisions to the KJV Bible that Joseph Smith made in his "translation."

Only partially.

Notice the statement--which Zakuska quoted but about which he made no comment--that the autographic text of Scripture "in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."

Another bald assertion. Without the autographs ASSERT is all you can do.

For evangelicals, as this statement indicates, the qualification that inspiration applies strictly speaking to the autographs of Scripture means that we must do our best through textual criticism to establish what the original text said as far as possible and to base our understanding of Scripture on that critically established text.

And if that still doesn't get you to where you want to be, you can 1) simply produce an English translation that renders it closer to what you already believe, 2) just say it doesn't mean what it says.

Evangelicals reject the claim that the present texts of the Bible are woefully incomplete, theologically untrustworthy, or requiring new revelations to be corrected or completed.

Even though such a belief is NOT found in the Bible and is therefore a violation of "sola scriptura". But hey, just keep asserting away.

By the way, the presupposition of article X of the Chicago Statement is that we do in fact have original-language copies of the books of Scripture and can compare them to determine with a high degree of accuracy what the original wording of those books was.

Again, simply a bald assertion.

So Mormons really cannot affirm article X as an accurate statement about Scripture, even if they can agree with parts of the article with regard to the Bible.

Nor do we want to. It is false doctrine and non-Biblical.

[ebeddoulos]

Rob bowman,

Unlike the Latter-day Saints who rely on modern day prophets and continued revelation from God, others in the protestant and primarily the evangelical tradition rely on the Bible as their primary, final and supreme authority. In the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conservative and evangelical Protestants refined and defined a doctrine known as Biblical Inerrancy. Gleason Archer wrote, “The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy guarantees only the original manuscripts of Scripture as preserved from all error; it does not guarantee absolute trustworthiness of all copies ever made from that original.” (Gleason L. Archer, “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, [1982], pg. 173)

The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is so broadly written and defined that through its gates one can drive an 18 wheeler loaded with the LDS standard works in order to load its cargo on a C5A military cargo plane sitting on the inerrancy tarmac. To illustrate this I will quote from the useful distillation of this doctrine found in The Moody Handbook of Theology. See: (Enns, Paul, “The Moody Handbook of Theology”, Chicago: Moody Press, [1989], pg. 166-70)

“In the past it was sufficient to state that the Bible was inspired; however, it has now become necessary to define the evangelical position more precisely. The result, as Charles Ryrie has shown, has necessitated the inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms “verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration”

In a final definition it is noted that inerrancy extends to the original manuscripts.

Note: Note: the original documents are called autographs and refer to the first hand written manuscripts. Like the Book of Mormon’s golden plates, original Bible autograph manuscripts are not available with which to compare our current scriptures.

Inerrancy allows for variety in style,

Note: Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a composite document written by many ancient authors at various times, each with their own subconscious writing habits and patterns, which when combined with training and native talent form their own unique literary style.

Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event,

Note: This allows for the various accounts by Paul and Joseph Smith surrounding their first vision.

Inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events,

Note: This explains the variety of freedoms taken when quoting Biblical texts in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar,

Note: This accounts for both the King James and the Book of Mormon’s deviation from commonly accepted grammar.

Inerrancy allows for problem passages,

Note: This simply means that any passage that cannot be explained is taken on faith that God will in due time make known the answer. Good examples are the old anti-Mormon arguments about cement and barley. Archeological discoveries have made these non-issues except for the ignorant and the deliberately deceptive.

Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction.

Note: This is wholly dependant upon scriptural interpretation and the doctrinal belief system of the individual.

While the Latter-day Saint scriptural canon easily meet this broadly defined and even more broadly interpreted standard, inerrancy is not a term which Latter-day Saints typically might use. Maybe Reverend Billy Graham said it best:

“I believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God, but I don't use the word ‘inerrant’ because it’s become a brittle divisive word.” “The biggest battle being waged by the conservatives is a high-powered effort to expel from the evangelical movement anyone who does not subscribe to the old fundamentalist theory of Biblical inerrancy. According to this theory, which was developed by nineteenth-century Protestant theologians, the authority of the Bible rests solely on the belief that the original Scriptures were accurate in everything they affirmed—not only about matters of faith but about geography, science and history as well. In most scholarly circles Biblical inerrancy is dismissed as a theory that may actually make it more difficult to understand the Bible. ‘Today the theory is largely a sociological password,’ says evangelical historian Grant Wacker, ‘something fundamentalists flash to find who’s on their side and who is not.’ Billy Graham, for one, clearly is not. ‘I believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God,’ Graham says, ‘but I don’t use the word ‘inerrant because it’s become a brittle, divisive word. I have certainly changed,’ Graham now acknowledges, and his example has enabled many other former fundamentalists to follow suite.” (Kenneth L. Woodward quoting Billy Graham et al, “The Split-up Evangelicals,” Newsweek, [April 26, 1982], pg. 89)

Ironically, the Bible itself admits that it had been badly corrupted before. Let us look at what GOD Almighty said in the Bible:

“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?” (Jeremiah 8:8 - NIV84/11)

The Today's English Version makes this even clearer:

"How can you say that you are wise and that you know my laws? Look, the laws have been changed by dishonest scribes." (Jeremiah 8:8 - TEV/GNB)

There are some who claim they know what the original autographs contain but as I pointed out to Hughes with the Goliath passage, the scholars are unsure from year to year, version to version and edition to edition what the original autographs said. On the otherhand, Latter-Day Saints safely rely on the Bible because they have the Holy Ghost, modern day prophets and additional scripture such as the Book of Mormon to guide them past what some believe are Biblical blemishes.

Edited September 10, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Zakuska]

And if that still doesn't get you to where you want to be, you can 1) simply produce an English translation that renders it closer to what you already believe, 2) just say it doesn't mean what it says.

Case in point...

Colossians 2:13-14

is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views. For example, the

NIV

translates these verses: "...he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." However, the

NRSV

translates this same verse as: "...he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a

record of trespasses

, rather than

the Law itself

, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word χειρόγραφον which according to Strong's G5498

[30]

literally means "something written by hand" which is variously translated as "written code" or "record", as in a record of

debt.

So what did Christ nail to his cross? The law of Moses? So we no longer have to pay any attention to it? Like faith alone/Grace Alone proponents want us to beleive?

I must ask... do Gods laws and statutes change? Does he respect persons? Are his Weights and Balances unequal?

Or was it the list of sins and trespasses and their associated penalties that were being recorded against us that he did away with, at the cross?

Personally the latter makes a lot more sense and aligns much better with the theme of the entire Bible and not just the NT, as well as the BOM.

Isaiah 53:5

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Mosiah 14:5

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

1 Peter 2:24

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 2:2

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Romans 3:25

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

2 Nephi 2:7

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

2 Nephi 2:10

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

Moroni 7:28

28 For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens.

Christ took our just punishment for us, and thats what he nailed to his cross. Not the law of Moses!

Heres another example of a core Christian doctrine being effected by variant texts...

Prov 8

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

KJV

vs

LXX

²² “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,^[c][d]

before his deeds of old;

²³ I was formed long ages ago,

at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

²⁴ When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,

when there were no springs overflowing with water;

²⁵ before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth,

²⁶ before he made the world or its fields

or any of the dust of the earth.

²⁷ I was there when he set the heavens in place,

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

²⁸ when he established the clouds above

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

²⁹ when he gave the sea its boundary

so the waters would not overstep his command,

and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

³⁰ Then I was constantly^[e] at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

rejoicing always in his presence,

³¹ rejoicing in his whole world

and delighting in mankind.

So was Christ merely with God during creation? Or was Christ the first thing God created?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Zakuska

[Joseph Antley]

With regards to the Woman Taken in Adultery in John, it seems impossible that even LDS could look at the textual evidence and conclude that it was originally part of John's Gospel. It was almost certainly added centuries later.

That said, that does not mean the story is not true or was just "made up." But it clearly was a later insert into the Gospel.

[ebeddoulos]

With regards to the Woman Taken in Adultery in John, it seems impossible that even LDS could look at the textual evidence and conclude that it was originally part of John's Gospel. It was almost certainly added centuries later.

That said, that does not mean the story is not true or was just "made up." But it clearly was a later insert into the Gospel.

Perhaps ... perhaps not. There are arguments for and against which are argued by scholars who are for and against. On the negative, Nestle-Alond and the United Bible Societies both provide critical text for the pericope but indicate that the text is a later addition, though the UBS gives its reconstruct a rating of {A} or "virtually certain". On the plus side, Nolan (1865), and Burgon (1886); Hoskier (1920), and more recently O.T. Fuller (1978), Pickering (1980), Hodges and Farstad (1985), Robinson and Pierpont(2005) think it is authentic. The new Society of Biblical Literature's Greek Text uses the Robinson and Pierpoint text for its Critical Edition but it, too, relegates the text to a footnote. So it is a mixed bag.

I like the final two verses as found in the Joseph Smith Translation:

"When Jesus had raised up himself, and saw none of her accusers, and the woman standing, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name." (John 8:10-11)

Personally, I think the versions, scholars and individuals who leave the Pericope Adulterae out of the Bible are poorer for the decision.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

...Like the Book of Mormon’s golden plates, original Bible autograph manuscripts are not available with which to compare our current scriptures.

This is not a valid comparison. Although we do not have the autographs of the biblical writings, we do have thousands of copies of them. There are zero copies of the alleged original Book of Mormon writings. (Not even the Anthon transcript, which, assuming for the sake of discussion that it had been copied from the gold plates, would have been copied from a different book represented by the lost 116 pages and not from any part of the Book of Mormon.) That is the salient compariso

For example, that the Epistle of Paul to the Romans was originally written in Greek in the middle of the first century is indisputable fact. We don't need the autographs to know that it originated at that time and that it read essentially as we find it today in the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The multitude of ancient and medieval copies of the epistle in Greek and the also very large number of copies of translations of the epistle written in other ancient languages (Coptic, Latin, etc.) form a genealogical tree with which one can trace the origin of the book back to a first-century Greek original. This isn't in any serious dispute, even by agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman. This is the typical situation for all 27 books of the NT. We have numerous Greek, Coptic, and Latin manuscripts of all of these books, the earliest of which date from the early second century. Even the wildest-eyed skeptic agrees that all of them existed within a hundred years or less of the time that the Gospels indicate Jesus was crucified.

By contrast, there are no manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon in existence in any ancient language, let alone the Reformed Egyptian that it claims to have been its original language. (Nor will such ever be found, since the gold plates were supposedly buried immediately after the Book of Mormon was complete and remained buried until Joseph Smith got them.) There is no physical or historical evidence for its existence prior to the late 1820s. This is one of the main reasons why hardly anyone outside the Mormon tradition views the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. Opposition to Mormon belief cannot explain away this fact; after all, numerous non-Christians vehemently reject the Bible, but they have no problem agreeing that Paul was a real person, that he wrote Romans in the 50s, and so forth. There is a real difference here. The origin of Romans and the other NT writings within a hundred years or less of the death of Jesus is objective fact, one that no reasonable person can or does dispute. The origin of the Book of Mormon in the fifth century AD is not an objective fact; it is indeed a claim that many reasonable persons can and do dispute. And the disparity between the NT and the Book of Mormon in terms of manuscript evidence is a fundamental reason for this difference.

[KevinG]

When LDS say things that sound like what evangelicals say, the reality is that they often mean something very different.

Nice poisoning the well there. Under the veneer of polite scholarship nonetheless. Perhaps you should just drop the mask and say that you can't trust Mormons to say what they believe. (Add spooky conspiracy music here ala History Channel special on Mountain Meadows Massacre).

For Mormons, the absence of the autographs means that the Bible's dominant theological outlook is suspect.

The last time I checked the dominant theological outlook of the Bible and Book of Mormon is that Jesus Christ is our Savior and it is by His grace that we are saved.

It is bad enough when people attempt to tell us what we believe but it is even worse when someone has the avocation of telling others what we believe while claiming we cannot be trusted to teach our own beliefs.

I can forgive ignorance but calumny masquerading as scholarship is ugly.

Edited September 11, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Oh and before I get the predictable response that it is by grace "after all we can do" for Mormons making their theology different from others...

Those who love Christ will obey Him. Quite Biblical.

[Anakin7]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

This is not a valid comparison. Although we do not have the autographs of the biblical writings, we do have thousands of copies of them. There are zero copies of the alleged original Book of Mormon writings. (Not even the Anthon transcript, which, assuming for the sake of discussion that it had been copied from the gold plates, would have been copied from a different book represented by the lost 116 pages and not from any part of the Book of Mormon.) That is the salient compariso

For example, that the Epistle of Paul to the Romans was originally written in Greek in the middle of the first century is indisputable fact. We don't need the autographs to know that it originated at that time and that it read essentially as we find it today in the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The multitude of ancient and medieval copies of the epistle in Greek and the also very large number of copies of translations of the epistle written in other ancient languages (Coptic, Latin, etc.) form a genealogical tree with which one can trace the origin of the book back to a first-century Greek original. This isn't in any serious dispute, even by agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman. This is the typical situation for all 27 books of the NT. We have numerous Greek, Coptic, and Latin manuscripts of all of these books, the earliest of which date from the early second century. Even the wildest-eyed skeptic agrees that all of them existed within a hundred years or less of the time that the Gospels indicate Jesus was crucified.

By contrast, there are no manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon in existence in any ancient language, let alone the Reformed Egyptian that it claims to have been its original language. (Nor will such ever be found, since the gold plates were supposedly buried immediately after the Book of Mormon was complete and remained buried until Joseph Smith got them.) There is no physical or historical evidence for its existence prior to the late 1820s. This is one of the main reasons why hardly anyone outside the Mormon tradition views the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. Opposition to Mormon belief cannot explain away this fact; after all, numerous non-Christians vehemently reject the Bible, but they have no problem agreeing that Paul was a real person, that he wrote Romans in the 50s, and so forth. There is a real difference here. The origin of Romans and the other NT writings within a hundred years or less of the death of Jesus is objective fact, one that no reasonable person can or does dispute. The origin of the Book of Mormon in the fifth century AD is not an objective fact; it is indeed a claim that many reasonable persons can and do dispute. And the disparity between the NT and the Book of Mormon in terms of manuscript evidence is a fundamental reason for this difference.

Rob my Brother In Christ Jesus Have you been keeping updated on Book Of Mormon scholarship for the past 25 Years ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI Knight.

[Joseph Antley]

So it is a mixed bag.

It's not that mixed. A very few scholars may hold the opinion that the story of the woman taken in adultery is an authentic part of the Gospel, but they are part of a very small minority and are likely driven by their religious bias. Scholars overwhelming agree that this pericope was added to the Gospel in the third of fourth century, and frankly any scholars who can honestly argue otherwise are either not objectively looking at the evidence, are using very poor methodology, or are arguing it because their religion faith (some as evangelical fundamentalism) may require it to be so.

But again, the fact that the pericope is clearly not originally part of John's Gospel does not make it any less true or historically authentic. Papias seems to refer to a form of the story in the early second century, and Didymus the Blind records a version of it (with some different details) in the fourth century, so it clearly was a popular extra-biblical story that may have had historical roots.

In fact, since the account in Didymus the Blind's commentaries actually predates the story's appearance in any New Testament manuscript, one might even argue that Didymus' version -- which has a number of differences with the John version -- may be the more authentic.

[Calm]

In fact, since the account in Didymus the Blind's commentaries actually predates the story's appearance in any New Testament manuscript, one might even argue that Didymus' version -- which has a number of differences with the John version -- may be the more authentic.

Link please.

[Joseph Antley]

Link please.

I don't have the reference off-hand, but in any case I don't think Didymus' works are available online (maybe someone else here knows?). If not then on Monday I'll find the reference and transcribe the paragraphs from a hard copy and post them here.

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin7,

You wrote:

Rob my Brother In Christ Jesus Have you been keeping updated on Book Of Mormon scholarship for the past 25 Years ?

I'm pretty familiar with Book of Mormon scholarship. Are you suggesting that I've missed something in recent Book of Mormon scholarship that undermines or conflicts with what I said?

[ebeddoulos]

This is not a valid comparison. Although we do not have the autographs of the biblical writings, we do have thousands of copies of them. There are zero copies of the alleged original Book of Mormon writings. (Not even the Anthon transcript, which, assuming for the sake of discussion that it had been copied from the gold plates, would have been copied from a different book represented by the lost 116 pages and not from any part of the Book of Mormon.) That is the salient compariso

It is valid, you know it but you probably wish that I did not. Yes, it is true that we have thousands of copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum. And yes, not a single copy of a copy of a copy is without its own peculiar change, be it addition, deletion or other mistake. Case in point, Hebrews 2:9. Westcott and Hort noted that there were two viable readings χαριτι θεου (chariti theon) and χωρὶς θεου (charis theon) (W-H, pg 600). Like Westcott-Hort, both Nestle-Aland (NA26/27, pg 565) and United Bible Society (UBS4, pg 750) prefer χαριτι θεου. However, the SBL edition of the Greek New Testament (SBL, pg 434) favors χωρὶς θεου. Is this a big deal? Oh yeah. One states that Jesus died “by the grace of God”. The other means He died “apart from God”. So yes, it is a BIG DEAL!

For example, that the Epistle of Paul to the Romans was originally written in Greek in the middle of the first century is indisputable fact. We don't need the autographs to know that it originated at that time and that it read essentially as we find it today in the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The multitude of ancient and medieval copies of the epistle in Greek and the also very large number of copies of translations of the epistle written in other ancient languages (Coptic, Latin, etc.) form a genealogical tree with which one can trace the origin of the book back to a first-century Greek original. This isn't in any serious dispute, even by agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman. This is the typical situation for all 27 books of the NT. We have numerous Greek, Coptic, and Latin manuscripts of all of these books, the earliest of which date from the early second century. Even the wildest-eyed skeptic agrees that all of them existed within a hundred years or less of the time that the Gospels indicate Jesus was crucified.

The critical editions of the Greek New Testament are based on rules which “supposedly” lead to the autographs. The reality is that the rules are nothing more than a way to justify a logical guess. Often the rules are not followed by textual critics who made them and they are ignored by the translators who are supposed to apply them. In the illustration above, most surviving manuscripts use χαριτι θεου. Those who subscribe to rule that the textual changes flow from the difficult to understand to the easier to understand would use χωρὶς θεου. External evidence from earlier church fathers and medieval writers also support the χωρὶς θεου reading. Internal evidence, too, supports the χωρὶς θεου reading. (Since you like the good professor, see Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus", pg 144-149) That said, there are few modern translations that follow it, though some will give it a margin reading – the NIV84/11 not being one of them. What use are the ancient manuscripts if they conflict with each other? What good are they if the textual critics and translators cannot agree on which of the conflicted readings provides the best interpretation?

Fortunately, I am Latter-day Saint and have the more sure word of prophesy and the associated prophets who are in communication with Christ Jesus and are able to provide the interpretation as necessary.

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

By contrast, there are no manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon in existence in any ancient language, let alone the Reformed Egyptian that it claims to have been its original language. (Nor will such ever be found, since the gold plates were supposedly buried immediately after the Book of Mormon was complete and remained buried until Joseph Smith got them.) There is no physical or historical evidence for its existence prior to the late 1820s. This is one of the main reasons why hardly anyone outside the Mormon tradition views the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. Opposition to Mormon belief cannot explain away this fact; after all, numerous non-Christians vehemently reject the Bible, but they have no problem agreeing that Paul was a real person, that he wrote Romans in the 50s, and so forth. There is a real difference here. The origin of Romans and the other NT writings within a hundred years or less of the death of Jesus is objective fact, one that no reasonable person can or does dispute. The origin of the Book of Mormon in the fifth century AD is not an objective fact; it is indeed a claim that many reasonable persons can and do dispute. And the disparity between the NT and the Book of Mormon in terms of manuscript evidence is a fundamental reason for this difference.

Though I do not agree with your interpretation of the evidence, I know that is not the only type of evidence nor is it even close to the best. There is a reason why the Church (which according to National Council of Churches is currently the fourth largest denomination and at the present rate of growth is soon to become the third largest) continues to grow when other denominations are experiencing a decrease in membership. Such as yours perhaps? Those who listen to the spirit who guides to all truth (John 16:13, Moroni 10:5), receive the proof which is burned into their heart (Luke 24:32-34, Jeremiah 20:9, Psalms 39:2-4). The nice thing about this type of evidence is that it is anyone’s for the asking (Moroni 10:4) as long as they ask with sincere heart and real intent.

[LeSellers]

In fact, since the account in Didymus the Blind's commentaries actually predates the story's appearance in any New Testament manuscript, one might even argue that Didymus' version -- which has a number of differences with the John version -- may be the more authentic.

Link please.

Try this.

Lehi

Edited September 11, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

Your comments have nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that the thousands of manuscript copies of the books of the New Testament (I used Romans as an example) prove beyond any reasonable doubt (even to skeptics and others antagonistic to Christianity) that the NT books originated in the first century, whereas the absolute lack of any original-language copy of the Book of Mormon is one of the reasons why no non-Mormon scholar regards the Book of Mormon as originating from the ancient world.

I am happy to discuss text-critical issues in their proper place. However, I do not want to let such issues as the correct reading of Hebrews 2:9 obscure the point I am making here.

[Joseph Antley]

Your comments have nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that the thousands of manuscript copies of the books of the New Testament (I used Romans as an example) prove beyond any reasonable doubt (even to skeptics and others antagonistic to Christianity) that the NT books originated in the first century,

It might be worth pointing out that many scholars believe that many of the NT books, such as the pastoral epistles and 2 Peter, were written in the second century. I don't see how the amount of manuscripts proves that a New Testament book was written in the first century, but I don't think that was your main point anyway.

[Joseph Antley]

Try this.

Lehi

I don't think you'll find it there. I want to say it is somewhere in Didymus' Commentary on the Psalms (not all of which have been published), but I may well be mistaken. I'll find out tomorrow or Tuesday.