8th article of faith

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

To be fair, I don't think other denominations do much better. Many professional clergy are up to date on scholarship (I'm not sure if our top leaders are), but none of it seems to filter down to the congregations. For the most part, anyway. 

I think they do better with respect to using more modern English translations as I understand it the KJV is less common today.  I would agree with you that many evangelical Christians, especially the biblical literalists, aren't open to scholarship.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Thanks for your response. I'm a little confused by your answer, what I am asking is should I trust the text of the Bible as "being translated correctly" or not?  I know the LDS use the KJV, has that been "translated correctly"?

Article of Faith 8 begins with "We believe...," so everything we do is in relation to that belief. If you believe the Article, you trust it and typically think you should trust it.

Some believe that any version of the Bible is inerrant and so the text of any version should be trusted.

The use of the phrase "as far as" indicates that, believing in the Article, we should pretty much trust the Bible text.The LDS use the KJV in English, and also other versions and translations for other languages, so who knows which, if any, are more correct than the others. I suppose that, because it is debatable, it is a matter of standardization that only certain translations are used in certain languages for official Church purposes and the curriculum she publishes.

The Article needs to be taken as a whole. The inclusion of the Book of Mormon in it shows that we believe it is the word of God, and implies that in contrast to the Bible, it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon mentions that its contents restore many of the plain and precious things that were removed or mistranslated from what became the Bible (any version in any language) that we have in the world today.

Since I believe in the Article, I trust the Book of Mormon to inform my interpretation of the gospel as represented in the Bible text when I feel I'm not getting the right message from the Biblical text.

 

[Okrahomer]

27 minutes ago, maklelan said:

That depends on what kind of "insights" you're talking about. If you're just meditating on decisions in your life and ways to construct and reconstruct gospel doctrines in your head, the scriptures are really just a non-critical supplement. If you're actually trying to understand what the authors of the scriptures are saying, why they're saying it, and what they want you to get out of it, then the scholarship makes all the difference in the world. For instance, without biblical scholarship, you would have no idea that Job 19:26 actually has nothing to do with resurrection, since the KJV is a mistranslation and the text actually says, "without my flesh I will see God." Without biblical scholarship, you would have no idea that there was never a "woman taken in adultery," and that the text was actually added to the New Testament many centuries after Christ died, first in Luke and only later in John. It goes on and on and on.

How about both:  Spirit and Scholar?

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, maklelan said:

There is no "scripture department," but I am the current Bible specialist in the scripture translation section of the Publishing Services Department. The KJV won't go away anytime soon because the language it uses is fundamental to the language of the rest of our scriptures and to the terminology our culture has used since the founding of the Church. The language of all the other scriptures would have to be updated, and many gospel terms would be changed. That's not a leap the Church will make any time soon. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with it. We could revise and update the KJV pretty easily, which is precisely what we did with the Spanish and Portuguese, but to do so would throw a huge wrench in the whole thing. The Brethren just don't consider that worth it at this point.

Thanks for posting this.  It sounds pretty similar to what I posted earlier about the KJV being of primary importance because of its links to the BoM, D&C, etc.  

Curious, do you know if the Brethren have even talked about updating all the scriptures to more modern English?  I'm curious if it has been discussed, because I'm sure there are voices inside the church who see the problems with not only the language which is out of sync with the culture, but the scholarship that we're largely missing out on.   Any serious discussions that you're aware of, or are the concerns to great to even bring this to the table for consideration?  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I have no disagreement with the idea of increasing our understanding of scripture.  Biblical scholarship is fine and useful--as far as it goes.  But what I think is wrong, is for any of us to sit in judgement of the "regular" folk of the Church and think down upon them.  My experience with the scriptures and with the Holy Ghost is not inferior to anyone's experience.  When I allow Him to teach me, my learning is tailor-made by God; and I will not trade my spirit-filled insight with anything academia has to offer.

I'm not looking down on you or general members.  I'm acknowledging a disconnect that exists and that people are missing out on what I think are impactful insights that can be gained by engaging with 21st century scholarship.  The church has a culture that is largely fearful of outside ideas and scholarship.  I find this sad and somewhat ironic because Joseph Smith was constantly engaging with and learning from all kinds of source material.  

As for comparing your spiritual experiences or insights with others and trying to qualitatively measure who's insights are more spiritually valuable, that is something no-one can do as everyone's personal spiritual experiences are true and valid for that individual.  I respect people and their experiences. 

[Okrahomer]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not looking down on you or general members.  I'm acknowledging a disconnect that exists and that people are missing out on what I think are impactful insights that can be gained by engaging with 21st century scholarship.  The church has a culture that is largely fearful of outside ideas and scholarship.  I find this sad and somewhat ironic because Joseph Smith was constantly engaging with and learning from all kinds of source material.  

As for comparing your spiritual experiences or insights with others and trying to qualitatively measure who's insights are more spiritually valuable, that is something no-one can do as everyone's personal spiritual experiences are true and valid for that individual.  I respect people and their experiences. 

Fair enough.

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is what it says in the LDS bible dictionary (which is included in almost all LDS copies of the scriptures, but it's not considered revelation or scripture itself)-

With the discovery of more ancient manuscripts not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars. However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions. The newer versions are in many instances easier to read but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The LDS bible dictionary seems to imply that as more ancient documents are discovered, the original Biblical message is improved with these new discoveries. I would agree with this statement. We would be getting closer to the oldest and most original sources.

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

Then here the brethren say don't compare the ancient manuscripts for accuracy, compare them to the BOM and modern day prophets?  I thought the point was to get the most accurate message of the original letters written by the original prophets and apostles?

[snowflake]

17 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The LDS bible dictionary seems to imply that as more ancient documents are discovered, the original Biblical message is improved with these new discoveries. I would agree with this statement. We would be getting closer to the oldest and most original sources.

Then here the brethren say don't compare the ancient manuscripts for accuracy, compare them to the BOM and modern day prophets?  I thought the point was to get the most accurate message of the original letters written by the original prophets and apostles?

If it could be proven that many "plain and precious truths" have been removed, when, where, and what......that would be impressive. By far most of the errors found in comparing different manuscripts are exactly like problems with the BOM, spelling, punctuation, letters in certain words switched, words out of order...etc.  Errors on that level we find in the BOM and Bible, but recovering and documenting those plain and precious truths seems like something worth pursuing. 

[snowflake]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Article of Faith 8 begins with "We believe...," so everything we do is in relation to that belief. If you believe the Article, you trust it and typically think you should trust it.

Some believe that any version of the Bible is inerrant and so the text of any version should be trusted.

The use of the phrase "as far as" indicates that, believing in the Article, we should pretty much trust the Bible text.The LDS use the KJV in English, and also other versions and translations for other languages, so who knows which, if any, are more correct than the others. I suppose that, because it is debatable, it is a matter of standardization that only certain translations are used in certain languages for official Church purposes and the curriculum she publishes.

The Article needs to be taken as a whole. The inclusion of the Book of Mormon in it shows that we believe it is the word of God, and implies that in contrast to the Bible, it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon mentions that its contents restore many of the plain and precious things that were removed or mistranslated from what became the Bible (any version in any language) that we have in the world today.

Since I believe in the Article, I trust the Book of Mormon to inform my interpretation of the gospel as represented in the Bible text when I feel I'm not getting the right message from the Biblical text.

 

Could you elaborate on specifically what plain and precious truths are found in the BOM that I would not find in the KJV?

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting this.  It sounds pretty similar to what I posted earlier about the KJV being of primary importance because of its links to the BoM, D&C, etc.  

Curious, do you know if the Brethren have even talked about updating all the scriptures to more modern English?  I'm curious if it has been discussed, because I'm sure there are voices inside the church who see the problems with not only the language which is out of sync with the culture, but the scholarship that we're largely missing out on.   Any serious discussions that you're aware of, or are the concerns to great to even bring this to the table for consideration?  

They're aware of it, and there is the occasional comment, but nothing has been taken seriously at the level of the Scriptures Committee or higher.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Could you elaborate on specifically what plain and precious truths are found in the BOM that I would not find in the KJV?

I think one obvious one that most members would point to is how infant baptism isn't acceptable to God.  Another is likely the necessity of baptism (and baptism by immersion).  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

The LDS bible dictionary seems to imply that as more ancient documents are discovered, the original Biblical message is improved with these new discoveries. I would agree with this statement. We would be getting closer to the oldest and most original sources.

"Older is better" is an assumption.  The issue is not "old"but the family (ancestry) of the document.  A later manuscript may come from a more reliable family than the older one.

Then here the brethren say don't compare the ancient manuscripts for accuracy, compare them to the BOM and modern day prophets?  I thought the point was to get the most accurate message of the original letters written by the original prophets and apostles?

Huh?  I have no idea what you are trying to say?  (your question marks are not helpful?)

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What do you mean by "trust'? we're not biblical inerrantists if that's what you mean.

In English speaking countries we use the KJV. In other non-English speaking countries we use whatever language version is available.

It's quite possible that if the gospel had been restored in a different country (and language), then English-speaking members would use updated translations much like other parts of the LDS world get to use updated translations.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

There is no "scripture department," but I am the current Bible specialist in the scripture translation section of the Publishing Services Department. The KJV won't go away anytime soon because the language it uses is fundamental to the language of the rest of our scriptures and to the terminology our culture has used since the founding of the Church. The language of all the other scriptures would have to be updated, and many gospel terms would be changed. That's not a leap the Church will make any time soon. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with it. We could revise and update the KJV pretty easily, which is precisely what we did with the Spanish and Portuguese, but to do so would throw a huge wrench in the whole thing. The Brethren just don't consider that worth it at this point.

Good to know.  He didn't say "scripture department". That was just my term.  I asked him one day and he told me it wasn't a question he could answer because that was curriculum and he was in scriptures. I'm not sure what exactly his job was.

My copyright thoughts came not from revising the KJV, but other versions, but perhaps I got that from someone else.  

What you say is in line with the things I remember from him, but more clear. Thanks!

[VideoGameJunkie]

I only use the LDS KJV because I love the chapter headings that give great explanations and summaries to what I'm reading.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

No doubt.  I share that experience with you then.  Even so, I do not count Biblical Scholars among the prophets, nor do I believe their scholarship is scripture.

I agree, but scholarship can illuminate scripture in ways we might not have thought of otherwise. Thanks

[snowflake]

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think one obvious one that most members would point to is how infant baptism isn't acceptable to God.  Another is likely the necessity of baptism (and baptism by immersion).  

I do not believe that infant baptism is found in the KJV.  I did find a key verse in the BOM on baptism by immersion. Most Christian churches perform baptism by immersion.

2 Nephi 31:13

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

[Atheist Mormon]

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

The 8th article of faith states:  8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly?    And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study?

If you count over then thousand copies of copies, no. The Earliest scraps of copies we have is from 2nd century.....And KJV translation is far from complete.

[Okrahomer]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

I agree, but scholarship can illuminate scripture in ways we might not have thought of otherwise. Thanks

Yes, I definitely agree with you on this as well.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Could you elaborate on specifically what plain and precious truths are found in the BOM that I would not find in the KJV?

First let me say that the Book of Mormon is translated correctly "as far as" I am concerned.

That would be difficult to ascertain because we don’t know specifically what the angel was referring to when he explained it to Nephi (1 Nephi 13). Generally speaking, they would be those things that, with their absence, would prevent the Bible from containing “the fullness of the gospel.” See this link for an explanation of that term: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Fulness_of_the_Gospel

Some plain and precious truths I found in the Book of Mormon that I would not find in the KJV:

- The effect of hearing Jesus pray on the witnesses (3 Nephi 17:15-17; 19:32-34).

- The prophecies concerning the Gentiles in relation to the Restoration and bringing the Gospel to the remnant of Israel (1 Nephi 13, 14, 15 and 22; 2 Nephi 26 and 29; 3 Nephi 16, 21 and 30; Mormon 5) and too many others to list here (do a word search of “Gentile” in the Book of Mormon).

- The specific prophecies aimed at the Gentiles, and the promises made to them (more references than those listed above).

- The great and abominable church (interesting this is not in the Bible!).

- Secret combinations (interesting this is not in the Bible!).

- Christ speaking to a prophet just prior to His birth in the same way He spoke to Nephi

- Some doctrines such as child baptism; proper wording of some ordinances such as baptism and sacrament.

- Christ’s expression of joy over the righteousness of His people (3 Nephi 27:30).

- Details on the New Jerusalem, prophecies of Joseph (son of Israel).

- Any reference to Joseph Smith.

- Christ’s commission to the saints to sustain their leaders (3 Nephi 12:1).

[Guest]

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

The 8th article of faith states:  8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly?    And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study?

The Book of Mormon has a disclaimer that there many be errors, as well as many who wrote in it, made the same proclamation. So, the statement about the Bible is not an insult, just noting that errors were made by well meaning men. It would be nice if the first page pointing this out instead of praying King James as a righteous and near perfect Prince...which he was not. 

[Thinking]

During my BYU days I had a religion teacher named Monte S. Nyman. He liked to quote the 8th article of faith like this:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is interpreted correctly.

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

First let me say that the Book of Mormon is translated correctly "as far as" I am concerned.

That would be difficult to ascertain because we don’t know specifically what the angel was referring to when he explained it to Nephi (1 Nephi 13). Generally speaking, they would be those things that, with their absence, would prevent the Bible from containing “the fullness of the gospel.” See this link for an explanation of that term: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Fulness_of_the_Gospel

 

Some plain and precious truths I found in the Book of Mormon that I would not find in the KJV:

 

- The effect of hearing Jesus pray on the witnesses (3 Nephi 17:15-17; 19:32-34).

 

- The prophecies concerning the Gentiles in relation to the Restoration and bringing the Gospel to the remnant of Israel (1 Nephi 13, 14, 15 and 22; 2 Nephi 26 and 29; 3 Nephi 16, 21 and 30; Mormon 5) and too many others to list here (do a word search of “Gentile” in the Book of Mormon).

 

- The specific prophecies aimed at the Gentiles, and the promises made to them (more references than those listed above).

 

- The great and abominable church (interesting this is not in the Bible!).

 

- Secret combinations (interesting this is not in the Bible!).

 

- Christ speaking to a prophet just prior to His birth in the same way He spoke to Nephi

 

- Some doctrines such as child baptism; proper wording of some ordinances such as baptism and sacrament.

 

- Christ’s expression of joy over the righteousness of His people (3 Nephi 27:30).

 

- Details on the New Jerusalem, prophecies of Joseph (son of Israel).

 

- Any reference to Joseph Smith.

 

- Christ’s commission to the saints to sustain their leaders (3 Nephi 12:1).

To claim that something is missing from the Bible is nothing new, however, to prove something is missing from the Bible now that takes some evidence.  Manuscripts would have to be shown that something was there first and then it was removed or corrupted. This claim that the Bible has been corrupted and is missing parts has been claimed by the Muslims for over a thousand years. Is there evidence to prove  your claims above that there was something in the Bible and then it was removed or corrupted? How can you prove such a thing?

 

I can claim that Abraham Lincoln was in the Bible too but evil men removed it, and the corruption happened before the earliest manuscripts we have. And we don't have the original documents so my claim is true.

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Book of Mormon has a disclaimer that there many be errors, as well as many who wrote in it, made the same proclamation. So, the statement about the Bible is not an insult, just noting that errors were made by well meaning men. It would be nice if the first page pointing this out instead of praying King James as a righteous and near perfect Prince...which he was not. 

Joseph "translated" the Bible himself to remove all the so called errors, why doesn't the LDS church use the JST instead of the KJV?

[snowflake]

17 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

If you count over then thousand copies of copies, no. The Earliest scraps of copies we have is from 2nd century.....And KJV translation is far from complete.

I believe the BOM to be corrupted, with only 28% of the original manuscript remaining, corrupt leaders edited and changed the book to remove many "plain and precious truths".  It is far from complete, along with the missing 116 pages, how can this book be trusted? We don't have the golden plates the check the book against. They removed the endowment ceremony and all the parts about the Melchizedek priesthood too. I think the 8th article of faith should have a disclaimer about the BOM like it does about the Bible.