LDS Bible Videos Discussion

[David T]

The new Bible Video of Jesus and the Samaritan woman was just posted. And while it covers the dialogue verbatim from the KJV, there are two particular phrases that was, well, were very noticeably left out - especially if you're following along with the text printed below the video:

* Jesus' note that the man the woman had now wasn't her husband

* "God is spirit".

Their approach to these, while the production values are wonderful, is strange. With the Widow's mite, they kept the KJV language except they replaced "Verily I say unto you" with the much clearer and understandable modern usage, "A Truth:". they saw the need to update language for clarity and flow.

Here, the entirety of the tongue-tying KJV is used, BUT, with two very small section of the text: one where the woman's current relationship status is mentioned, and one that is constantly a very strong point of contention and argument over meaning are just...left out.

Actually, not just left out. The "god is Spirit" has been replaced with the JST, "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit."

Seeing as this is the first day it's out, I haven't seen anyone else taking note of it.

Seeing as these were designed to be ecumenical in usage, do you feel this was a helpful decision, or unfortunate?

I'm not trying to nitpick, but viewing these in light of their context of a highly publicized expression of outreach and PR and as to how we approach the Bible. All the previous videos have been fantastic, with very little that could be considered controversial or altering of principles (with the exception, perhaps, of the removal of the prophetess Anna from the Jesus at the Temple story).

Edited February 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

I don't know about the edits, but apparently an encounter with the Savior is enough to make someone temporarily lose their accent.

Edited February 1, 2012 by cinepro

[volgadon]

while the production values are wonderful

I dunno, didn't impress me all too much. The editing you mentioned is very silly.

[cinepro]

From the website:

These videos are faithful to the biblical account, with scripts based on the King James Version of the Bible. The text also accompanies each video scene. The videos were filmed in the deserts of Utah.

--------------------------------------

These free Bible videos are a gift from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They may be used freely by individuals, families, and groups without acknowledgement as long as the terms of use are observed. They are made available to the public solely for the purpose of helping more people understand and appreciate the matchless life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world.

Last week in Gospel Doctrine class, we talked about the "plain and precious" things being taken out of the Bible (as foreseen by Nephi), and we were all enthusiastically theorizing about why a church would need to change scripture. I suspect the same level of thinking is at work here, where there's something that's just a little uncomfortable, so you snip it out or reword it to make it flow a little better according to your understanding...

Edited February 1, 2012 by cinepro

[orion88]

... and we were all enthusiastically theorizing about why a church would need to change scripture. I suspect the same level of thinking is at work here, where there's something that's just a little uncomfortable, so you snip it out or reword it to make it flow a little better according to your understanding...

Did anyone in your class theorize on why the church did not stay with the original 1830

version of the Book of Mormon as it was originally translated by Mr. Smith?

Here are some examples:

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning

from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret

such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in

subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not

come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to

'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and

many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome

people."

"White" was changed to "pure" but they left the other verse which spoke about the curse of

black skin as opposed to the white and delightsome people (2 Nephi 5:21).

[KevinG]

From the website:

Last week in Gospel Doctrine class, we talked about the "plain and precious" things being taken out of the Bible (as foreseen by Nephi), and we were all enthusiastically theorizing about why a church would need to change scripture. I suspect the same level of thinking is at work here, where there's something that's just a little uncomfortable, so you snip it out or reword it to make it flow a little better according to your understanding...

...and 2000 years later the snipping really adds up!

[KevinG]

Did anyone in your class theorize on why the church did not stay with the original 1830

version of the Book of Mormon as it was originally translated by Mr. Smith?

Here are some examples:

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning

from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret

such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in

subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not

come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to

'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and

many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome

people."

"White" was changed to "pure" but they left the other verse which spoke about the curse of

black skin as opposed to the white and delightsome people (2 Nephi 5:21).

This is usually an institute topic not a Sunday School lesson. Many changes were made to conform to the original manuscripts or correct errors. In the case of white being changed to pure I beleive that was done to clarify the meaning and not have contemporary people read race into a statement that was not meant to be about race but was meant to be about their spiritual state.

Of course you know about these things if you've really studied Mormons and their beliefs outside of anti-Mormon websites.

[De Groote]

I just watched the Woman at the Well video again and it has been changed to add both

--Jesus' note that the man the woman had now wasn't her husband

and

--God is spirit.

We should probably expect a lot of flexibility in these videos as they are used over time for many things from general videos like these to CES applications etc.

I might add that the recent ones are wonderful. They are unlike any other Biblical videos I have ever seen. Watching them with the sound turned up is an quite the experience. The Last Supper and the next one where the disciples are walking with Jesus to the Garden are so intimate and personal -- they did an excellent job.

[cdowis]

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning

from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret

such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in

subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not

come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to

'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and

many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome

people."

The first two changes were corrections of errors apparently on the original plates. The translation process kept the text as it was on the plates, including factual errors.

Regarding the third change, there were several changes in the text to clarify it meaning to the modern reader. For example, "the mother of God" to "the mother of the Son of God". Both are correct but confusion could ensue based on the use of the former term with the Catholic church.

In the same manner, "white" and "pure" were both correct translations but the latter was later chosen for clarification. See the 1828 Webster's definition for "WHITE" at http://1828.mshaffer...rch/word,white.

5. Pure; unblemished.

6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin.

This change was originally made by JS in 1840, so it was not made to conform to current social issues, but based on the prophet's decision to clarify the meaning of the text.

Edited March 18, 2012 by cdowis

[David T]

I just watched the Woman at the Well video again and it has been changed to add both

--Jesus' note that the man the woman had now wasn't her husband

and

--God is spirit.

Wow! You're right! I wonder if they had 2 edits, and accidentally posted the JST version instead of the KJV for the site. Not that the JST removed the 'thou hast had 5 husbands' thing. I did make a comment on lds,org's Facebook post advertising this video ,noting it was interesting they used the JST version. That comment was deleted from the thread later that evening...

[David T]

The just posted a few new ones, of Gethsemane, and Peter's Denial.

I think the Gethsemane one is one of the best ones they've done so far. I think it's also the most...bloody thing the Church has ever done, and the first time I've seen a bloody Gethsemane portrayed (the closest was the subtle but cool dark red beads of sweat in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ). I thought the way that was handled in this new video was quite unique.

Also, woah! on the splash of blood with the slicing off of the ear!

I really have been very impressed overall with these productions.

http://www.lds.org/bible-videos/?lang=eng

[BCSpace]

Here, the entirety of the tongue-tying KJV is used, BUT, with two very small section of the text: one where the woman's current relationship status is mentioned, and one that is constantly a very strong point of contention and argument over meaning are just...left out.

Actually, not just left out. The "god is Spirit" has been replaced with the JST, "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit."

Seeing as this is the first day it's out, I haven't seen anyone else taking note of it.

Seeing as these were designed to be ecumenical in usage, do you feel this was a helpful decision, or unfortunate?

I'd actually prefer the JST to be used whenever possible. We might be ecumenical in the "lite" sense of Christian cooperation, but we've never been ecumenical in the literal sense of unifying the various churches into a single Christian Church.

[ebeddoulos]

Just to add to and expand on cdowis comments (#9 above)

In the 1840 edition, Joseph Smith changed 2 Nephi 30:6 to read “pure” where before it had read “white”. This edit was not picked up in the British and subsequent American editions until 1981.

“And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” (2 Nephi 30:6, ~1830~)

“And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” (2 Nephi 30:6, ~1840 & 1981~)

A reading from Daniel 12:10 in several versions may provide some clarification. Some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word “laban” in Daniel 12:10 as white.

“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” (Daniel 12:10, KJV)

“Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire …” (DRV)

“Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined …” (RSV)

“Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined …” (ASV)

“Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined …” (NWT)

“Many shall be purified, made white, and refined …” (NKJV)

Now notice how many recent Bibles translate “laban” in Daniel 12:10 as something other than white.

“Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.” (Daniel 12:10, NIV)

“Many people will have their hearts and lives made clean and pure …” (CEV)

“Many shall be refined, purified, and tested …” (NAB)

“Many will be purified, purged and refined …” (JPS)

“Many shall be refined, purified, and tested …” (NIV)

“Many shall be purified by great trials and persecutions …” (TLB)

From the Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions we learn: lâban (לבן) means: 1) to be white; 1a) (Hiphil) 1) to make white, become white, purify 2) to show whiteness, grow white; 1b) (Hithpael) to become white, be purified (ethical)

Over the years, white, in the general usage of English, has assumed meanings and conotations other than those originally intended. This is why in both Daniel 12:10 and 2 Nephi 30:6 it has been re-phrased to use pure in lieu of white.

[Wiki Wonka]

Did anyone in your class theorize on why the church did not stay with the original 1830

version of the Book of Mormon as it was originally translated by Mr. Smith?

Because it was written using 19th-century language and contained numerous typographical errors. According to Mormon, as stated in the 1830 edition,

"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men."

This phrase was updated to modern language and now reads,

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men."

Textual changes—The claim is often heard that there are more than 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon text. The majority of these are typographical. Few of the changes are significant. We examine the more noteworthy changes. (Link)

Here are some examples:

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning

from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret

such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in

subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not

come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to

'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1—In the text currently found in Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition reads "Benjamin", while all subsequent editions read "Mosiah." Likewise, a reference to Benjamin in what is now Ether 4:1 was changed to "Mosiah" in 1849. Critics claim that "either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it." (Link)

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and

many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome

people."

"White" was changed to "pure" but they left the other verse which spoke about the curse of

black skin as opposed to the white and delightsome people (2 Nephi 5:21).

"white" changed to "pure"—Critics accuse the Church of attempting to hide a racially offensive statement. (Link)

[David T]

Why has this thread turned into a discussion of BoM textual tradition, rather than discussion of the Bible Videos?

[Pahoran]

Did anyone in your class theorize on why the church did not stay with the original 1830 version of the Book of Mormon as it was originally translated by Mr. Smith?

Here are some examples:

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to 'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

"White" was changed to "pure" but they left the other verse which spoke about the curse of black skin as opposed to the white and delightsome people (2 Nephi 5:21).

Do you actually have any thoughts of your own to contribute, or are you only going to keep on repeating these industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon talking points that stopped being original before you were born?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Why has this thread turned into a discussion of BoM textual tradition, rather than discussion of the Bible Videos?

Because someone with one eye managed to hijack the thread with a standard set of anti-Mormon note cards.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1—In the text currently found in Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition reads "Benjamin", while all subsequent editions read "Mosiah." Likewise, a reference to Benjamin in what is now Ether 4:1 was changed to "Mosiah" in 1849. Critics claim that "either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it." (Link)

My theory has long been that Joseph Smith saw Benjamin on the plates because in the days leading to the Babylonian captivity the Jews used patronyms. That is, like a Russian novel, men were routinely referred to by the name of their father, as in Ben-Jamin. So Mosiah's name was Mosiah Ben-Jamin and all Joseph Smith saw was the patronym. Because that was all there was on the plates. Like reading Anna Karinina.

[David T]

They've just posted Jesus Turns Water Into Wine ... and again, used the JST.

KJV as listed on the video's page: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

JST, as featured in the video: "Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come."

[cdowis]

Because it was written using 19th-century language and contained numerous typographical errors. According to Mormon, as stated in the 1830 edition,

"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men."

This phrase was updated to modern language and now reads,

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men."

It was changed to the venacular. "Be" is the subjunctive mood, used after the "if"phrase, but is seldom used today. "If he be wrong...."

Textual changes—The claim is often heard that there are more than 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon text. The majority of these are typographical. Few of the changes are significant. We examine the more noteworthy changes. (Link)

One of Lighthouse Ministries' most embarrassing arguments. They really like to use the 4000 (mistakes) in their publications as a telling blow to the BOM that God would make so many mistakes. They were constantly looking for the holy grail -- the single piece of evidence to completely discredit the BOM as scripture.

"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1—In the text currently found in Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition reads "Benjamin", while all subsequent editions read "Mosiah." Likewise, a reference to Benjamin in what is now Ether 4:1 was changed to "Mosiah" in 1849. Critics claim that "either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it."

We do not worship the Book of Mormon, as some worship the Bible.

Mormon wrote this and it was a simple factual error, having nothing to do with doctrine.

[David T]

Alright, let's please from here on out keep this thread a discussion of the Bible Videos, and not Book of Mormon translation, please. Thanks. Repeating the last on-topic post:

They've just posted Jesus Turns Water Into Wine ... and again, used the JST.

KJV as listed on the video's page: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

JST, as featured in the video: "Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come."

[Scott Lloyd]

Alright, let's please from here on out keep this thread a discussion of the Bible Videos, and not Book of Mormon translation, please. Thanks. Repeating the last on-topic post:

They've just posted Jesus Turns Water Into Wine ... and again, used the JST.

KJV as listed on the video's page: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

JST, as featured in the video: "Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come."

I don't understand why, among faithful Latter-day Saints, there should be any objection to using content from the JST as opposed to the KJV, since the former is regarded as a more correct translation.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

I have no objection at all to the Church producing JST-inspired videos, and also, doing what they appear to have done, which is shoot alternate versions of at least some of the videos with both texts. I think it's fascinating to have, visually represented, a very specifically and uniquely Mormon version of the Biblical stories, based on Joseph's revision/update.

There is, however, on those pages no note of the JST, or what it is. The text listed below the videos is the KJV. In all the press, they have been said to be based on the KJV text, and are not the kind of changes justifiable by any of the cited gospel texts. As it says on the about page, "These videos are faithful to the biblical account, with scripts based on the King James Version of the Bible. The text also accompanies each video scene."

The JST isn't "The Bible", as would be understood. It's a distinct and unique modern work of Latter-day Saint literature.

These have been promoted to be seen as an ecumenical gift of sorts, for use and edification by the rest of the Christian world. I find the ecumenical benefit they hope to gain by using an archaic English translation as the base text is somewhat in conflict with using uniquely Mormon revisions of the text as part of it as well.

I love the Joseph Smith Bible Revision, and feel it was an inspired project, even though I don't believe its resulting contents have anything to do with actual original ancient versions of the text. It's an Upgrade.

Edited April 30, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no objection at all to the Church producing JST-inspired videos, and also, doing what they appear to have done, which is shoot alternate versions of at least some of the videos with both texts. I think it's fascinating to have, visually represented, a very specifically and uniquely Mormon version of the Biblical stories, based on Joseph's revision/update.

There is, however, on those pages no note of the JST, or what it is. The text listed below the videos is the KJV. In all the press, they have been said to be based on the KJV text, and are not the kind of changes justifiable by any of the cited gospel texts. As it says on the about page, "These videos are faithful to the biblical account, with scripts based on the King James Version of the Bible. The text also accompanies each video scene."

The JST isn't "The Bible", as would be understood. It's a distinct and unique modern work of Latter-day Saint literature.

These have been promoted to be seen as an ecumenical gift of sorts, for use and edification by the rest of the Christian world. I find the ecumenical benefit they hope to gain by using an archaic English translation as the base text is somewhat in conflict with using uniquely Mormon revisions of the text as part of it as well.

I love the Joseph Smith Bible Revision, and feel it was an inspired project, even though I don't believe its resulting contents have anything to do with actual original ancient versions of the text. It's an Upgrade.

After I made my last post above, I had a face-to-face discussion here in the office with Michael DeGroote, one of the contributors to this thread, who expressed essentially the same sentiments as you did here. I can see your (and his) point.

If I were going to use one of the videos in, say, a Sunday School class, I would prefer the JST version. But I do agree that if it's being offered to the world, there needs to be an accurate description of its content.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

What on earth is that large pool doing there?