ksfisher Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 16 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I haven't read this book..but how loose is this translation..what does it mean? A tight translation would mean that the words were presented to Joseph to read in the seer stone. Joseph read them off and Oliver (or others) wrote them down. A loose translation theorizes that Joseph was more a participant in the process. The Spirit would translate what was on the plates, but Joseph would participate in putting that translation into words.
Calm Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 36 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I haven't read this book..but how loose is this translation..what does it mean? This may help: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-the-gift-and-power-translating-the-book-of-mormon 1
Jeanne Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 28 minutes ago, Calm said: This may help: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-the-gift-and-power-translating-the-book-of-mormon Thank you.
Jeanne Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 44 minutes ago, ksfisher said: A tight translation would mean that the words were presented to Joseph to read in the seer stone. Joseph read them off and Oliver (or others) wrote them down. A loose translation theorizes that Joseph was more a participant in the process. The Spirit would translate what was on the plates, but Joseph would participate in putting that translation into words. Thanks. I think. I am kind of upset right now.
Bobbieaware Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, snowflake said: The prophets in the BOM before the arrival of the messiah can be quoted as calling him Jesus Christ. Nephi, King Benjamin, Alma and Heleman all use the specific name of Jesus hundreds of years before his arrival in the Americas. When comparing this to the OT prophets of the Bible, the specific name of Jesus is never mentioned. I find this very intriguing, any ideas why the OT Biblical prophets were not given the specific name of Jesus as opposed to the Prophets in the BOM? Why has no one used the Book of Mormon itself to answer this question? The first instance when the name CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 10, which was written by the prophet Jacob some 50 years after Lehi and his people left the city of Jerusalem en route to the promised land. The first instance when the name JESUS CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 25, which was written by the prophet Nephi, also enscribed about 50 years after Lehi and his entourage departed Jerusalem. Prior to these first two instances of the names Christ and Jesus Christ being used by Book of Mormon prophets, the Lord was referred to by several different titles including the Savior, Redeemer, Messiah, Lamb of God, Holy One of Israel, Creator, etc.. Remarkably, in these two first instances when the names Christ and Jesus Christ are used by Book of Mormom prophets, both Jacob and Nephi testify they only began using the proper names (not titles) of Christ and Jesus Christ as the actual personal name (surname and first name) of the Savior after an angel had appeared to them and revealed that the personal name of the Messiah is Jesus Christ. So if one believes in angelic ministration and revelation, what's so hard to believe about an angel, who is privy to a portion of the infinite foreknowledge of God, revealing to Old Testament era prophets that in the Hebrew tongue of Jacob and Nephi the personal name of the Savior of the world would be Yeshua HA'Mashiach? Wouldn't an angel likely know the Savior"s personal name? And finally, what is so hard to believe about the the prophet Joseph Smith translating Yeshua HA'Mashiach into the familiar Jesus Christ for the sake of English-speaking readers of the Book of Mormon? Just a sincerely motivated suggestion to you, Snowfake: Why don't you make it a point to carefully read the Book of Mormon yourself so that you can learn the answers to many of your questions on your own? That way you won't have to come on this board and ask others to spoonfeed you all the answers. In this instance, if you had read the Book of Mormon, you would have known the Nephites were unaware of the personal name of the Lord is Jesus Christ until an angel, through special revelation, revealed it to them -- and there's your answer. And for someone who knows God has infinite foreknowledge, and that he reveals much of what he foreknows to his prophets, there's nothing intriguing (you probably wanted to use the word suspicious) about it at all. Edited July 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware 1
Calm Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Thanks. I think. I am kind of upset right now. Go back and read the scout camp letter again. 2
Jeanne Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Go back and read the scout camp letter again. That was a hoot!!!
Freedom Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: And this, from me: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Bummer. I was going to post an article by Kevin Christensen but Kevin Christensen beat me to it. 2
Glenn101 Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: Strange words like adieu showing up does lend to an impression that part of the translation process was dependent upon Joseph. The stone in hat testimony of Martin Harris largely suggests otherwise. I have a lot on my plate right now or otherwise I might look at that book, it might relate to some of the research I am doing a little. However, I think we are dealing basically with guesswork here. The Book of Mormon translation process brings up so many interesting questions. Some things indicate a loose translation, as many have pointed out. I don't even know if adieu would have been part of Joseph's vocabulary back then, but it is very possible. Then there is the language itself, which Royal Skousen, in his Critical Text project, found to be of an early modern English variety that predated the Bible and was mostly obsolete at the time the Bible was translated. (This was a bit of serendipity because Royal was not looking for that when he was attempting to recover the original text of the Book of Mormon as dictated to the scribes.) Then there are the quotes from the Isaiah in the Bible found in the Book of Mormon. Some of the passages are quoted word fro word as they appear in the KJV edition of the Bible, and then there are other passages, more than half, that are different. No one has been able to come up with a good explanation for that, although various theories abound, none of which provide all of the answers. Then, there is the current OP about the name Jesus appearing in the translation. It is actually the easiest to answer and has been answered pretty well. Glenn 1
RevTestament Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 37 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: The Book of Mormon translation process brings up so many interesting questions. Some things indicate a loose translation, as many have pointed out. I don't even know if adieu would have been part of Joseph's vocabulary back then, but it is very possible. Then there is the language itself, which Royal Skousen, in his Critical Text project, found to be of an early modern English variety that predated the Bible and was mostly obsolete at the time the Bible was translated. (This was a bit of serendipity because Royal was not looking for that when he was attempting to recover the original text of the Book of Mormon as dictated to the scribes.) Then there are the quotes from the Isaiah in the Bible found in the Book of Mormon. Some of the passages are quoted word fro word as they appear in the KJV edition of the Bible, and then there are other passages, more than half, that are different. No one has been able to come up with a good explanation for that, although various theories abound, none of which provide all of the answers. Glenn What about the printer, Grandin editing those passages to conform to the Biblical Isaiah? Joseph Smith may have changed some back to the original manuscript. I don't know how much the church knows about the printer manuscript and whether it reveals a lot of passages being actually conformed to the King James version by Grandin. Do you?
Rivers Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Why has no one used the Book of Mormon itself to answer this question? The first instance when the name CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 10, which was written by the prophet Jacob some 50 years after Lehi and his people left the city of Jerusalem en route to the promised land. The first instance when the name JESUS CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 25, which was written by the prophet Nephi also about 50 years after Lehi and his entourage departed Jerusalem. Prior these first two instances of the names Christ and Jesus Christ being used by Book of Mormon prophets, the Lord was referred to by several different titles including the Savior, Redeemer, Messiah, Lamb of God, Holy One of Israel, Creator, etc.. Remarkably, in these two first instances when the names Christ and Jesus Christ are used by Book of Mormom prophets, both Jacob and Nephi testify they only began using the proper names (not titles) of Christ and Jesus Christ as the actual personal name (surname and first name) of the Savior after an angel had appeared to them and revealed that the personal name of the Messiah is Jesus Christ. So if one believes in angelic ministration and revelation, what's so hard to believe about and angel, who is privy to some of the infinite foreknowledge of God, revealing to Old Testament era prophets that in the Hebrew tongue of Jacob and Nephi the personal name of the Savior of the world would be Yeshua HA'Mashiach? Wouldn't an angel likely know the Savior"s personal name? And finally, what is so hard to believe about the the prophet Joseph Smith translating Yeshua HA'Mashiach into the familiar Jesus Christ for the sake of English-speaking readers of the Book of Mormon? Just a sincerely motivated suggestion to you, Snowfake: Why don't you make it a point to carefully read the Book of Mormon yourself so that you can learn the answers to many of your questions on your own? That way you won't have to come on this board and ask others to spoonfeed you all the answers. In this instance, if you had read the Book of Mormon, you would have known the Nephites were unaware of the personal name of the Lord is Jesus Christ until an angel, through special revelation, revealed it to them -- and there's your answer. And for someone who knows God has infinite foreknowledge, and that he reveals much of what he foreknows to his prophets, there's nothing intriguing (you probably wanted to use the word suspicious) about it at all. Snowflake is asking why none of the Old Testament prophets had the Savior's name given to them before Christ came. One can ask the same kind of question about lots Christian things in the Book of Mormon: Baptism, Holy Ghost, detailed information on the atonement, etc.
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Glenn101 said: . I don't even know if adieu would have been part of Joseph's vocabulary back then, but it is very possible. It is considered an American word in Webster's 1828 dictionary, so very likely: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Adieu
Glenn101 Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: What about the printer, Grandin editing those passages to conform to the Biblical Isaiah? Joseph Smith may have changed some back to the original manuscript. I don't know how much the church knows about the printer manuscript and whether it reveals a lot of passages being actually conformed to the King James version by Grandin. Do you? There is no evidence that the typesetter, John H. Gilbert made any changes except for adding the punctuation marks. Most of the printer's manuscript (eighty percent or so) is in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. It does not seem feasible, likely, probable that Gilbert made any such major editing. Glenn 2
RevTestament Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: There is no evidence that the typesetter, John H. Gilbert made any changes except for adding the punctuation marks. Most of the printer's manuscript (eighty percent or so) is in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. It does not seem feasible, likely, probable that Gilbert made any such major editing. Glenn Thank you.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 14 hours ago, ksfisher said: The appearance of the name Jesus Christ, a Greek name, would seem to have been introduced by Joseph Smith in the translation process. Book of Mormon writers would have known the Savior by whatever name they called him in the language they spoke. Calling the Savior Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon would seem to be appropriated. The book the Joseph Smith translated was produced for a modern audience, so a name that modern people were familiar with was used. Correct. Jesus Christ is the English version of the Greco-Roman version of the Hebrew Yeshua haMashiach, which one could freely translate as "The Messianic Savior." The specific etymology of Jesus is given in a dream-vision in Hebrew by an angel to Yosef, fiance of Miriam, and we have the Greek version of that encounter in Matthew 1:21 (Luke 1:31, 2:21): "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save the people from their sins" -- he is called Yeshua, "Salvation, Savior," because that is what he will do. Mary, who received a similar vision naming JESUS, uses Jesus' name in her exclamation in Luke 1:47, "God my Saviour." Simeon the priest makes a similar exclamation when baby Jesus is presented to him during the rite of the redemption of the first born in Luke 2:22-35, saying "mine eyes have seen thy salvation" (2:30; 1 Sam 2:1). Even though the record we have now is in Greek, all this took place in Hebrew, and would have been crystal clear to anyone on the scene. Indeed, the phrase used by Simeon is all one word frequently found in the OT, yeshuatka "thy-salvation" (like yeshuati "my-salvation," which is also quite common). Simeon might as well have been saying to God the Father "mine eyes have seen your Jesus." This applies as well to 2 Nephi 33:6, "I glory in my Jesus," which a OT translator for the KJV would always translate as "I glory in my salvation" (Ex 15:2, Pss 27:1, 38:22, 62:7, 69:29, 91:16, 118:14,21, Isa 12:2, 46:13, 52:7, 56:1, Jer 3:23, Hab 3:13, Zech 9:9), with all the double meanings which that implies. The translation options become most clear when quotations are compared: Psalm 2:2 Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 16 hours ago, snowflake said: The prophets in the BOM before the arrival of the messiah can be quoted as calling him Jesus Christ. Nephi, King Benjamin, Alma and Heleman all use the specific name of Jesus hundreds of years before his arrival in the Americas. When comparing this to the OT prophets of the Bible, the specific name of Jesus is never mentioned. I find this very intriguing, any ideas why the OT Biblical prophets were not given the specific name of Jesus as opposed to the Prophets in the BOM? As pointed out by Kevin Christensen, the Greco-Roman name Jesus appears in the OT several times in other, more Hebraic forms. It even appears as Jesus in the KJV Apocrypha -- The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, and another in 1 Esdras 5:5, mainly because the translators were reading Greek there, not Hebrew. Otherwise, the failure to see predictions of the birth of Jesus by name in the OT are likely based on translation as "salvation" rather than Jesus. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Rivers said: Snowflake is asking why none of the Old Testament prophets had the Savior's name given to them before Christ came. One can ask the same kind of question about lots Christian things in the Book of Mormon: Baptism, Holy Ghost, detailed information on the atonement, etc. While true enough on the surface of the KJV translation (and the earlier translations upon which it depended), all those items are indeed found in the OT, baptism, Holy Ghost, atonement, etc. Indeed, one is hard put to find anything in the NT which is not already available in the OT, even though it may be hidden behind differing translation terminology. Edited July 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Why has no one used the Book of Mormon itself to answer this question? The first instance when the name CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 10, which was written by the prophet Jacob some 50 years after Lehi and his people left the city of Jerusalem en route to the promised land. The first instance when the name JESUS CHRIST is found in the Book of Mormon is in 2 Nephi 25, which was written by the prophet Nephi also about 50 years after Lehi and his entourage departed Jerusalem. Prior these first two instances of the names Christ and Jesus Christ being used by Book of Mormon prophets, the Lord was referred to by several different titles including the Savior, Redeemer, Messiah, Lamb of God, Holy One of Israel, Creator, etc.. Remarkably, in these two first instances when the names Christ and Jesus Christ are used by Book of Mormom prophets, both Jacob and Nephi testify they only began using the proper names (not titles) of Christ and Jesus Christ as the actual personal name (surname and first name) of the Savior after an angel had appeared to them and revealed that the personal name of the Messiah is Jesus Christ. So if one believes in angelic ministration and revelation, what's so hard to believe about and angel, who is privy to some of the infinite foreknowledge of God, revealing to Old Testament era prophets that in the Hebrew tongue of Jacob and Nephi the personal name of the Savior of the world would be Yeshua HA'Mashiach? Wouldn't an angel likely know the Savior"s personal name? And finally, what is so hard to believe about the the prophet Joseph Smith translating Yeshua HA'Mashiach into the familiar Jesus Christ for the sake of English-speaking readers of the Book of Mormon? Just a sincerely motivated suggestion to you, Snowfake: Why don't you make it a point to carefully read the Book of Mormon yourself so that you can learn the answers to many of your questions on your own? That way you won't have to come on this board and ask others to spoonfeed you all the answers. In this instance, if you had read the Book of Mormon, you would have known the Nephites were unaware of the personal name of the Lord is Jesus Christ until an angel, through special revelation, revealed it to them -- and there's your answer. And for someone who knows God has infinite foreknowledge, and that he reveals much of what he foreknows to his prophets, there's nothing intriguing (you probably wanted to use the word suspicious) about it at all. Whoa, Bobbie. Please go easy on Snowflake: Those are reasonable and sincere questions. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 12 hours ago, snowflake said: Yeshua, Joshua, Jesus, the specific name is not found in the OT. However we see the name Jesus throughout the BOM, multiple prophets starting with Nephi using the Greek name Jesus. Not sure what you are saying here, snowflake, since the name appears frequently in the OT, just not always in the form you'd expect it. We also see the word "Bible", very odd this word showing up at that time and place in history. While it is true that the word "Bible" does not show up in the KJV, the word does show up in both Hebrew and Greek: Exodus 17:14, 32:32 sēper = LXX Greek biblion, or the plural in Ecclesiastes 12:12, Daniel 7:10, 9:2 sĕpārîm = LXX Greek biblia “books.” There are other, related terms: sēper habberît “Book of the Covenant; Pentateuch” (Exodus 24:7, 2 Kings 23:2) = biblos diathēkēs “book of the Covenant” (Ecclesiasticus 24:23), but the bottom line is that such phenomena are opaque to those unable to read the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. There are several Egyptian terms which were likely engraved on the Plates of Brass and the Plates of Mormon. Any good translation is naturally going to put them in English terms that we can understand here and now. ...................................................................................... 2
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Rivers said: Snowflake is asking why none of the Old Testament prophets had the Savior's name given to them before Christ came. One can ask the same kind of question about lots Christian things in the Book of Mormon: Baptism, Holy Ghost, detailed information on the atonement, etc. It is incorrect to say the only Old Testament era prophets who knew the personal name of the Messiah was Jesus Christ are the Book of Mormon prophets. The prophet Nephi sets the record straight on this erroneous notion: 19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 25) Beyond Nephi's word, is there any scriptural evidence that some Patriarchal era and Old Testament era prophets knew the Messiah's personal name is Jesus Christ? The answer is a resounding yes! 13 And when he (the brother of Jared) had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. (Ether 3) So the Patriarchal era prophet MahonrI Moriancumer knew the Messiah's name was Jesus Christ, and so did the prophet Adam... 52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6) The prophet Enoch also knew the Messiah's name was Jesus Christ... 50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods. (Moses 7) The prophet Noah also knew the name Jesus Christ... 24 Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they hearkened not. (Moses 8:24) The prophet Moses also knew the name of the Savior is Jesus Christ because he's the one who wrote the Book of Moses from which the 3 previous quoted verses were gleaned. And remember, according to the Lord himself, the Book of Moses is a restoration of some of Moses' original writings as they would have appeared in the Bible if they hadn't been tampered with and altered by spiritually-blind, corrupt men: 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be HAD AGAIN among the children of men—among as many as shall believe. (Moses 1) So because Snowflake does not know most of the teachings of the Restored Gospel he (or she) is unaware of the fact that the name Jesus Christ was known to Patriarchal and Old Testament era prophets before the Lord's arrival on earth in the flesh. So in light of all the above, why does the name Jesus Christ not appear in the Bible's Old Testament? Beyond all doubt, it is because that most sacred and holy name is among the many plain and precious truths that were expunged from the text of the Bible by corrupt and designing men who unrighteously tampered with the text of the Bible, just as the prophet Nephi forewarned: 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book (the Bible) hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. 29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. (1 Nephi 13) What I have written above is the most correct and easy to understand answer to Snowflake's question. The name Jesus Christ WAS KNOWN by many prophets of the Old Testament. Edited July 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware
snowflake Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: It is incorrect to say the only Old Testament era prophets who knew the personal name of the Messiah was Jesus Christ are the Book of Mormon prophets. The prophet Nephi sets the record straight on this erroneous notion: 19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 25) Beyond Nephi's word, is there any scriptural evidence that some Patriarchal era and Old Testament era prophets knew the Messiah's personal name is Jesus Christ? The answer is a resounding yes! 13 And when he (the brother of Jared) had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. (Ether 3) So the Patriarchal era prophet MahonrI Moriancumer knew the Messiah's name was Jesus Christ, and so did the prophet Adam... 52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6) The prophet Enoch also knew the Messiah's name was Jesus Christ... 50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods. (Moses 7) The prophet Noah also knew the name Jesus Christ... 24 Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they hearkened not. (Moses 8:24) The prophet Moses also knew the name of the Savior is Jesus Christ because he's the one who wrote the Book of Moses from which the 3 previous quoted verses were gleaned. And remember, according to the Lord himself, the Book of Moses is a restoration of some of Moses' original writings as they would have appeared in the Bible if they hadn't been tampered with and altered by spiritually-blind, corrupt men: 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be HAD AGAIN among the children of men—among as many as shall believe. (Moses 1) So because Snowflake does not know most of the teachings of the Restored Gospel he (or she) is unaware of the fact that the name Jesus Christ was known to Patriarchal and Old Testament era prophets before the Lord's arrival on earth in the flesh. So in light of all the above, why does the name Jesus Christ not appear in the Bible's Old Testament? Beyond all doubt, it is because that most sacred and holy name is among the many plain and precious truths that were expunged from the text of the Bible by corrupt and designing men who unrighteously tampered with the text of the Bible, just as the prophet Nephi forewarned: 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book (the Bible) hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. 29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. (1 Nephi 13) What I have written above is the most correct and easy to understand answer to Snowflake's question. The name Jesus Christ WAS KNOWN by many prophets of the Old Testament. Wow Bobbie, that is quite an impressive answer, thank you for that. I did know of the LDS stance that many plain truths had been taken away from the Bible, I guess it is fair to say that the entire gospel was removed from the OT as well? Do we have any manuscript evidence though? Claims by Joseph are easy to make, but we can look back at the manuscripts and show where the truths have been removed? When I read the BOM it just feels like everything is out of order, we have the name of Jesus, baptism, the gospel and crucifixion all through the BOM before the arrival of Jesus. At the same time we see the Nephites keeping the Law of Moses....and the gospel at the same time? To me, the more I read the BOM and compare it to the Bible, it just seems like it was written way after the fact and is uninspired.
snowflake Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not sure what you are saying here, snowflake, since the name appears frequently in the OT, just not always in the form you'd expect it. I agree with you Robert, the OT is full of prophecy, or foreshadowing of the Messiah. It is everywhere in the OT, except the name "Jesus". They knew many things about him, be born in Bethlehem, pierced, hung on a tree, virgin birth, take away sins, called Emmanuel, etc. I just find it incredibly out of sequence when you compare it to the LDS scriptures. Baptism, the gospel, belief in Jesus to be saved, before he shows up on the scene just seems made up to me after the fact. When you compare the BOM words to Isaiah, Jeremiah and other OT prophets they say nothing of baptism, the gospel and the specific name "Jesus". It just seems like Joseph made the story up to me.
Kevin Christensen Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 32 minutes ago, snowflake said: Wow Bobbie, that is quite an impressive answer, thank you for that. I did know of the LDS stance that many plain truths had been taken away from the Bible, I guess it is fair to say that the entire gospel was removed from the OT as well? Do we have any manuscript evidence though? Claims by Joseph are easy to make, but we can look back at the manuscripts and show where the truths have been removed? When I read the BOM it just feels like everything is out of order, we have the name of Jesus, baptism, the gospel and crucifixion all through the BOM before the arrival of Jesus. At the same time we see the Nephites keeping the Law of Moses....and the gospel at the same time? To me, the more I read the BOM and compare it to the Bible, it just seems like it was written way after the fact and is uninspired. Try this on the transmission of the Old Testament: http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf And then after reading that, read 1 Nephi 13:20-42, and consider exactly when each of these two texts were written. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Wow Bobbie, that is quite an impressive answer, thank you for that. I did know of the LDS stance that many plain truths had been taken away from the Bible, I guess it is fair to say that the entire gospel was removed from the OT as well? Do we have any manuscript evidence though? Claims by Joseph are easy to make, but we can look back at the manuscripts and show where the truths have been removed? When I read the BOM it just feels like everything is out of order, we have the name of Jesus, baptism, the gospel and crucifixion all through the BOM before the arrival of Jesus. At the same time we see the Nephites keeping the Law of Moses....and the gospel at the same time? To me, the more I read the BOM and compare it to the Bible, it just seems like it was written way after the fact and is uninspired. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same yesterday. today and forever. And if the Lord chose to reveal more of his unchanging Gospel to the righteous Nephites than he did to others, that is his prerogative. Are you saying you believe that for some reason God was incapable of revealing the principles of his eternal Gospel prior to the advent of Christ I'm the flesh?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, snowflake said: I agree with you Robert, the OT is full of prophecy, or foreshadowing of the Messiah. It is everywhere in the OT, except the name "Jesus". They knew many things about him, be born in Bethlehem, pierced, hung on a tree, virgin birth, take away sins, called Emmanuel, etc. I just find it incredibly out of sequence when you compare it to the LDS scriptures. Baptism, the gospel, belief in Jesus to be saved, before he shows up on the scene just seems made up to me after the fact. When you compare the BOM words to Isaiah, Jeremiah and other OT prophets they say nothing of baptism, the gospel and the specific name "Jesus". It just seems like Joseph made the story up to me. I tried making the point already, snowflake, but maybe just not strongly enough to register with you: The name "Jesus" appears regularly throughout the OT. You say that it doesn't because you only read the KJV and can't find the name of Jesus Christ in that English translation of the OT -- but only because you don't read Hebrew. Therefore, based on ignorance of the sources, you judge that Joseph must have made up the Book of Mormon story. This is a common but very flawed approach to evaluating the Book of Mormon. As to other terms or concepts commonly found in the NT (baptism, the gospel, being saved by faith in Jesus, etc.), all are to be found in the OT. 1. Baptism, for example, is derived from the Greek word baptein, baptidzen "baptize, dip, immerse," which is used in the Septuagint translation of Hebrew ṭabal, ṭebila (and some other terms) in the OT. This was also a very common practice among the Essenes (Qumran). What should tip you off is that no one in the NT ever questions why John the Baptizer should be baptizing people, but only whether he is the forthcoming Messiah. The religious authorities from Jerusalem clearly do not question the practice of baptism (even though modern Jews speak now only of immersion in a mikveh). In his 1922 Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon, Jewish-Mormon Hirsch Miller used several Hebrew terms to translate "baptize" in the Book of Mormon: bamayim yîṭābal wîṭahēr, ṭîhēr, ṭāhar, ṭahărâ, ṭahărat hāʼēš, lĕṭahēr, mĕṭahēr, all words well-known in the OT. 2. Gospel likewise comes from the OT, even though the KJV translation does not use that English word. The “good tidings” in Isaiah 52:7 (měbassēr tôb) is identical to the New Testament use of “Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) as “good news” (Mark 1:1), and the Book of Mormon even contains a midrash on Isa 52:7 in Mosiah 15:15-18, wherein “good tidings” = NT “Gospel.” Indeed, Robert Fisher says the “central core” of the message of Deutero-Isaiah “is the proclamation of the ultimate good news [Gospel] of exiled Israel’s imminent deliverance and the inauguration of the eschatological reign of God.” The herald of good tidings in Isaiah 40:9, for example (cf. 41:27, 52:7), is called in Hebrew mebaśśer(et), which is the piel participle form of BŚR, the only form in which this root occurs in 2nd Isaiah. The Latin Vulgate and Jerome translated it into evangelizas, while the Targum for 40:9 has Aramaic (d)bsryn “good tidings, gospel.” The prophet Muhammad, in the Qur’an, refers to himself as a “bringer of good tidings” (Arabic baširun, mubašširun), which is identical to New Testament evangelist. The mebaśśer or herald receives his call in the Divine Council and is the means whereby YHWH delivers the good news and inaugurates the new age – the herald brings the good news of YHWH’s coming. He is both bearer of the message of salvation, and the bringer of salvation (cf. Romans 10:15, Acts 11:22, 13:32, 2 Samuel 4:4). Robert W. Fisher, “The Herald of Good News in Second Isaiah,” in Jared J. Jackson & Martin Kessler, eds., Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 1 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 117; Allan A. MacRae, The Gospel of Isaiah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977/ reprint Interdisciplinary Biblical Research, 1992); Hugh Nibley, “Prophets and Glad Tidings,” chapter 30 in Nibley, The World and the Prophets, 3rd ed., CWHN 3 (FARMS/Deseret, 1987), 259-267. In addition, the very term “New Testament” comes from the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31-32. Jeremiah is also a source for being circumcized of heart (Jer 4:4, Lev 26:41, Deut 10:16, 30:6), which is often falsely seen as an exclusively NT concept (Romans 2:29). 3. Faith in the Lord is a common OT and NT concept (Deut 32:20, Hab 2:4), heavily emphasized by Hebrews 11:1-39, and buttressed by the common belief that Jesus is Lord Yahweh. Non-Mormon scholar Jo Ann Hackett has even suggested that Book of Mormon name Ammonihah means "YHWH is my faithfulness." Hackett & Welch, “Possible Linguistic Roots of Book of Mormon Names,” FARMS Preliminary Report CAR-81. Provo: FARMS, 1982. There are literally dozens of such crucial parallels between the OT and NT which escape notice based on the use by separate KJV translation committees of different religious terminology. Generations of naive readers have been tragically misled. Edited July 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 4
Recommended Posts