Sargon Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Those of you who are familiar with the Book of Mormon will know that the people of Lehi when they left Jerusalem brought with them a set of sacred records written on brass plates known as the Brass Plates of Laban. Those Brass Plates contained the complete text of the Old Testament (up to Jeremiah), plus a lot of additional material not found in our Bible. The Book of Mormon tells us that in 1 Nephi 13:23; and goes on to mention three of the scriptural books found in that record that is not mentioned in our Bible, called Zenock, Neum, and Zenos (1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16); and also the sacred writings of the ancient patriarch Joseph who was sold into Egypt (2 Nephi 3:5-22). And it is further prophesied in the Book of Mormon that those records will someday be revealed to the Church, and to the whole world (1 Nephi 5:17-19; Alma 37:3-5).In addition to these, there are many more ancient sacred records mentioned in modern revelation of the Church that are prophesied to be revealed to the Church someday, including the complete text of the New Testament (of which our NT is but a small and incomplete abridgement); the complete sacred writings of the people before the Flood, of which what we have is only a tiny fraction; the complete record of the Jaredites mentioned in the Book of Mormon, of which what we have is only a very small abridgement; and may more sacred records besides these, such as the complete records of the Nephites (of which the Book of Mormon is only an abridgement); plus the writings of the other tribes of Israel that the Lord has led away.Thanks Zerinus. I think those are reasonable conclusions, if not iron-clad. The confusion arose, I think, because of the wording of your original claim. It doesn't exactly say what you've said above. No bother, it isn't worth hashing out.
zerinus Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Thanks Zerinus. I think those are reasonable conclusions, if not iron-clad.What makes you say that? I think they are as "iron-clad" as any prophecy can be.The confusion arose, I think, because of the wording of your original claim. It doesn't exactly say what you've said above.Can you explain that a bit more? I am not clear about what you are saying.No bother, it isn't worth hashing out.Still not clear about what you are referring to. Please be more specific.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 It has been prophesied that a more complete text of the Bible, containing much more material than exists in our current Bible, will someday be revealed to the Church. When that time comes, a new translation of the Bible (a much bigger Bible) will be given to the Church by revelation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon was given, which would render any attempt by the Church at the present time to make a new translation of the existing, imperfect manuscripts a superfluous exercise.This "new translation" already happened. It was called the Joseph Smith Translation. But it didn't have all those books you are suggesting. If Joseph Smith considered the Book of Zenos, or the "parchment of John" to actually be part of the Bible, presumably he would have included them in his version. He easily could have done so. More likely, Smith saw these as discrete, non-Biblical revelations.
zerinus Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 This "new translation" already happened. It was called the Joseph Smith Translation. But it didn't have all those books you are suggesting. If Joseph Smith considered the Book of Zenos, or the "parchment of John" to actually be part of the Bible, presumably he would have included them in his version. He easily could have done so. More likely, Smith saw these as discrete, non-Biblical revelations.No, you are entirely wrong about that. The JST was never purported to be the predicted revelation of the Brass Plates of Laban, nor of all of the NT scriptures that have been prophesied to come forth.
Nathair/|\ Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 I recently saw two members of this forum arguing about some passage in the New Testament. Funnily enough, their whole discussion was pointless because they were both relying on the King James version which is simply in error regarding the passage under discussion (the KJV omitted a phrase which rendered their issue of debate as irrelevant).This made me wonder, why doesn’t the LDS Church “upgrade” their English translation to a more recent one. I know that all English translations have their problems (e.g. some of the more popular English translations betray their evangelical biases), but at least for these newer translations the New Testament is based on a more accurate Greek text, whereas the Greek text underlying the KJV is demonstrably inferior in many instances.Interestingly, I found this from LDS.org (source) –Personally I don’t see how the KJV can be “easier to read, in doctrinal matters”. This especially does not make sense considering the inferiority of the underlying Greek text that was used to translate the NT in the KJV.It may help your understanding of the statement if you replace the comma after read with a semicolon. They are saying that other translations are easier to read in the first clause. In the second clause, they are saying that in doctrinal matters the KJV better supports LDS doctrine. Hopefully that helps.What the second clause actually means has been debated more than once over the months since I joined. I'm not going to take a position on it at this time because I consider myself insufficiently informed on the matter.Personally, I love the language of the KJV, don't find it any more difficult than a more modern translation, and miss it when I read others. I do use a NRSV from time to time.
Kevin Barney Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Diglot, to answer your question, my perception is that only a small percentage of LDS use other translations. This is based in part on a Sunday School class I taught a few weeks ago. I gently talked about the challenges of using the KJV, how it is difficult to read, in many respects has been superseded, and that there is nothing wrong with at least using other modern translations for reference purposes to assist you with your study. I thought I was making an obvious and unobjectionable point, but I was surprised by the vehemence of the objection I faced. My class very vocally made it clear to me that as far as they're concerned it's the KJV all the way, baby!So I've been giving them little digs on this topic lately. Last Sunday I taught Hebrews, and I pointed out that it is almost impossible to read Hebrews 1 with comprehension in the KJV, because you're given no clue as to all the OT quotations that occur in the chapter (the KJV doesn't present them in a different font as is common in modern translations). If you try to just read the whole thing as connected prose it won't make any sense. (I showed my personal reformatting of the KJV showing all the quotes in bold text). So I said something like "Good luck following all of your crossreferences." I'm starting to get a little passive-aggressive on the topic, I'm afraid... 1
maklelan Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I didn't call you anything. I quoted you a perfectly valid piece of scripture. You can draw whatever inferences you like form that.Now in addition to name calling you're being dishonest. For someone who tries so hard to enforce such a restrictive brand of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy, you sure do take liberties with standards pretty much all Latter-day Saints try to meet.First of all it is not "my" prophecy, secondly it is not "strained," and thirdly it is not "vague".Wow, I guess I can't argue with that. Edited October 23, 2011 by maklelan 2
maklelan Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Those of you who are familiar with the Book of Mormon will know that the people of Lehi when they left Jerusalem brought with them a set of sacred records written on brass plates known as the Brass Plates of Laban. Those Brass Plates contained the complete text of the Old Testament (up to Jeremiah),The full text of the Old Testament? How do you figure? plus a lot of additional material not found in our Bible. The Book of Mormon tells us that in 1 Nephi 13:23; and goes on to mention three of the scriptural books found in that record that is not mentioned in our Bible, called Zenock, Neum, and Zenos (1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16); and also the sacred writings of the ancient patriarch Joseph who was sold into Egypt (2 Nephi 3:5-22). And it is further prophesied in the Book of Mormon that those records will someday be revealed to the Church, and to the whole world (1 Nephi 5:17-19; Alma 37:3-5).It only says the Brass Plates will go forth, the majority of which have long been known in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to these, there are many more ancient sacred records mentioned in modern revelation of the Church that are prophesied to be revealed to the Church someday, including the complete text of the New Testament (of which our NT is but a small and incomplete abridgement); the complete sacred writings of the people before the Flood, of which what we have is only a tiny fraction; the complete record of the Jaredites mentioned in the Book of Mormon, of which what we have is only a very small abridgement; and may more sacred records besides these, such as the complete records of the Nephites (of which the Book of Mormon is only an abridgement); plus the writings of the other tribes of Israel that the Lord has led away.And where in modern revelation do find it stated that all these texts will come forth? Please be specific.
mnn727 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I personally love the language of the KJV...... There is something powerful and majestic in the poetry of the words... Yeah, I hate poetry too, just never 'got it'.If you want to say something, then say it so people can understand what you're trying to convey.200 - 400 year old English no longer conveys the same meanings to modern readers that it did when it was written. Edited October 23, 2011 by mnn727
TAO Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I agree with Deborah and Silver Girl, the KJV has a sort of 'ring' to it which spells out the glory of God.I guess I like the tone set by the KJV better than the modern versions.I'd compare it, I guess, to reading modern translations of Shakespeare. Yeah, they are 'modern' english... but they don't even convey the wit or emotions set by the original play. You have to read the original text to get that. It's the same with the KJV for me... it rings right.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I only use other translations "online" so as to correct some anti-mormon claim about some scripture. I use http://www.BIBLE.CC primarily.Otherwise, there's really not much of a need to use another translation.
zerinus Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I thought your questions were already answered; but if you prefer a more detailed answer, here it is:The full text of the Old Testament? How do you figure?1 Nephi 13:21 And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book?22 And I said unto him: I know not.23 And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews [i.e. the Bible], which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.I don’t know about you; but the way I read that is that the Brass Plates contain the same material that is found in our Bible (up to Jeremiah), plus additional material not found in our Bible.It only says the Brass Plates will go forth, the majority of which have long been known in the Hebrew Bible.This is what it says:1 Nephi 5:17 And now when my father saw all these things, he was filled with the Spirit, and began to prophesy concerning his seed—18 That these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed.19 Wherefore, he said that these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time. And he prophesied many things concerning his seed.Alma 37:3 And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning—4 Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon.5 And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness; yea, and they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ.Again, I don’t know about you; but the way I read these verses is that they are a prophecy about the Brass Plates “going forth” (i.e. being published) in the latter days; not about the Bible. The Bible has already “gone forth”. This is about the Brass Plates, not the Bible. And it says that it will “go forth” (i.e. revealed and published) so that people may know the “mysteries” it contains. If it contains “mysteries,” then it contains stuff that we know nothing about. By what kind of logic and reason you equate that with the Bible, I have no idea.And where in modern revelation do find it stated that all these texts will come forth? Please be specific.I have already answered that question in part. The Brass Plates of Laban to be revealed (1 Nephi 5:17-19; Alma 37:3-5). The book of Enoch to be revealed (D&C 107:57). The sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (and indeed all of the revelations of Jesus Christ) to be revealed (Ether 4:4-8 ). The fullness of what Jesus taught to the Nephrites is to be revealed (3 Nephi 26:6-11). The original plates of the book of Ether to be revealed (Ether 1:4). Many of the “plain and precious” parts that has been held back from the Bible to be revealed (1 Nephi 13:40). The record of all the Lost Tribes of Israel (and all that God has revealed to mankind at various times) to be revealed (2 Nephi 29:11-14). The fullness of John’s records is to be revealed (D&C 93:6). Oliver Cowdery was promised a gift, if he would be faithful, to assist in the translation of other ancient records (D&C 9:2; 8:1). These are all that I could think of off the top of my head. I am sure that there will be a few that I have missed. Does that answer your question? Edited October 23, 2011 by zerinus
maklelan Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I thought your questions were already answered; but if you prefer a more detailed answer, here it is:1 Nephi 13:21 And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book?22 And I said unto him: I know not.23 And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews [i.e. the Bible], which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.I don’t know about you; but the way I read that is that the Brass Plates contain the same material that is found in our Bible (up to Jeremiah), plus additional material not found in our Bible."Like unto" does not mean "fully and completely extant in." It means they're similar, not identical. Your reading is quite strained. There is nothing at all in this statement that indicates the entirety of our current Old Testament (down to Jeremiah) was contained in the Brass Plates. This is what it says:1 Nephi 5:17 And now when my father saw all these things, he was filled with the Spirit, and began to prophesy concerning his seed—18 That these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed.19 Wherefore, he said that these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time. And he prophesied many things concerning his seed.Alma 37:3 And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning—4 Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon.5 And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness; yea, and they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ.Again, I don’t know about you; but the way I read these verses is that they are a prophecy about the Brass Plates “going forth” (i.e. being published) in the latter days; not about the Bible.But a large portion of the Brass Plates are just the Old Testament. You already insisted that every portion of the Old Testament is contained in the Brass Plates. Are those portions going to be republished?The Bible has already “gone forth”. This is about the Brass Plates, not the Bible. And it says that it will “go forth” (i.e. revealed and published) so that people may know the “mysteries” it contains. If it contains “mysteries,” then it contains stuff that we know nothing about. By what kind of logic and reason you equate that with the Bible, I have no idea.I equate it because you have already asserted that the Brass Plates contain the entire Old Testament down to Jeremiah.I have already answered that question in part. The Brass Plates of Laban to be revealed (1 Nephi 5:17-19; Alma 37:3-5). The book of Enoch to be revealed (D&C 107:57).This just says "these things" are written in Enoch and they are to be "testified of in due time." There is no requirement that the book of Enoch be published in order for things already discussed in the D&C to be "testified of."The sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (and indeed all of the revelations of Jesus Christ) to be revealed (Ether 4:4-8 ).That's not a reference to scripture, that's a reference to receiving revelation. The fullness of what Jesus taught to the Nephrites is to be revealed (3 Nephi 26:6-11).No, it doesn't say the fulness, it says the "greater part," and it explicitly says it will only be revealed if the people believe the lesser account, which is contained in the Book of Mormon. That means it's conditional. The original plates of the book of Ether to be revealed (Ether 1:4).Not quite. That says that the person who finds the records will have power to get the full account. Joseph Smith found the records, and whether or not he himself got the full account, we certainly don't have it. Are the plates going to be "found" again?Many of the “plain and precious” parts that has been held back from the Bible to be revealed (1 Nephi 13:40).That can just as easily be understood to be the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. The record of all the Lost Tribes of Israel (and all that God has revealed to mankind at various times) to be revealed (2 Nephi 29:11-14).No, it says the Nephites and the Jews will have the words of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I am neither a Nephite nor a Jew. Are you one or the other?The fullness of John’s records is to be revealed (D&C 93:6).To whom, and in what way? By revelation, or in book form? Oliver Cowdery was promised a gift, if he would be faithful, to assist in the translation of other ancient records (D&C 9:2; 8:1).And which other ancient records do you believe he helped with before he died? You don't mean to insist that he has translations currently pending, do you? These are all that I could think of off the top of my head. I am sure that there will be a few that I have missed. Does that answer your question?It's not a satisfactory answer, but it does show that you are indeed forcing presuppositions upon texts that don't even begin to be supported by them. My original judgment obviously holds. 1
zerinus Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 <snip>It's not a satisfactory answer, but it does show that you are indeed forcing presuppositions upon texts that don't even begin to be supported by them. My original judgment obviously holds.I think that you are being argumentative, and just nitpicking, and I am not interested in that kind of debate with anyone. If I am not mistaken, it is also against board rules. We are supposed to engage in serious discussion with people, not just nitpick or argue for the sake of arguing. I have nothing further to add to what I have said. What I have said and what you have said are plain for everyone to see, and judge for themselves. I will let them be the judges. Have a nice day.
maklelan Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I think that you are being argumentative, and just nitpicking, and I am not interested in that kind of debate with anyone.I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm showing how your statement is accurately represented by my earlier statement. Speaking in some detail about the meaning of scriptural texts is unavoidable. Characterizing this as nitpicking and being argumentative is rather evasive. If I am not mistaken, it is also against board rules. We are supposed to engage in serious discussion with people, not just nitpick or argue for the sake of arguing. I have nothing further to add to what I have said.Then your argument fails. What I have said and what you have said are plain for everyone to see, and judge for themselves. I will let them be the judges. Have a nice day.Thanks.
Recommended Posts