california_ave

That is true, none of the autographs (original manuscripts) exist. (The plates Joseph translated were not autographs either--with the exception of Mormon's own words). Not having the autographs we don't know what is right and true unless a prophet quotes the text in conference, we therefore we must throw our hands in the air. NO! That is not the path the prophet Joseph took: "I have an old book of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German and Greek. I have been reading the German and find it to be the most correct, and it corresponds nearest to the revelations I have given for the last fourteen years." Joseph Smith as reported in Times & Seasons, August 15, 1844. Joseph loved languages and preferred the German translation of the Bible. Shouldn't we study and search the same as Joseph? Can't we use the Biblical scholarship of the last two centuries to help us understand God's word? With so much more manuscripts available now, can't we incorporate modern tools like textual criticism, DNA parchment analyzes, etc. and piece together a story of what the autographs looked like? Can't we use scholarship to get us closer to what the ancient apostles originally wrote? We can supplement this new-found understanding with the Holy Spirit, always welcoming correction and evolution in our scriptural understanding. Joseph corresponded his learning with his revelations to increase his understanding. Shouldn't we do the same?

I first bought a bundled set of Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptureby Ehrman. They were about 1.5 books stretched into two. I like Ehrman in that he takes subjects usually left to scholars and explains them simply for the masses. Because of these books, I also bought Misquoting Jesus when that came out. There seems to be some dislike for the book on this thread, but I enjoyed reading the text. Ehrman raises some good questions and provides a good introduction of textual criticism applied to sctipture. I feel that Ehrman does want to disabuse people of believing scripture can be divine, and a reader needs to understand Ehrman's position, but don't discount the issues he raises because you disagree with his conclusions. He does a great job sparking a discussion. I've learned many things about scripture from his book. My criticism of his book is that Ehrman doesn't fully build his arguments and glosses over many points. This is probably a result of him addressing a lay audience. Though, he could do better. I wonder if his publishers asked him to not be as weighty as he could have been in order to sell more books.

This is not entirely true. Granted JS didn't have any original texts or ancient documents when rendering biblical doctrinal commentary, he did have a simple understanding of Hebrew. Hebrew was the first subject taught in the School of the Prophets. I argue that his understanding of Hebrew helped Joseph, for example, understand the plurality of Gods in the creation story of Genesis. This understanding influenced his revelatory commentary (i.e., JST) of Genesis. Joseph studied languages and scripture to aid in his revelatory process of understanding and generating scripture. Shouldn't we also seek to understand scripture from different dimensions (including different scriptural translations and prayer/spirit) as JS did? Prisionchaplain makes a good point about the readability of the KJV verses "modern" English translations. The Shakespearean English of the KJV impedes and discourages many from studying and understanding God's word if that is all that is offered. Those who are fluent in KJ English have often forgetten how difficult it is to understand the new text. I find this is true that most KJV understandability issues are resolved in the LDS footnotes or BD for the interested student. But isn't this a cumbersome way of studying God's word? Why do I need to form an archaic English vocabulary just to understand the Bible?

The LDS Church has consistently used the King James Version as its standard English version of the Bible. This is the version that is in fact published by the church and included in the quadruple combination. This is the version that is quoted in General Conference and nearly all Church members bring to Sunday School and Seminary. The Church Handbook of Instructions states: But we also accept that the Bible has flaws: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". When Joseph Smith wrote the article of faith to John Wentworth, the KJV was the dominate English translation and had been for centuries. We know that the KJV is rife with errors. Among the problems of the KJV, limited greek and hebrew texts were available to the translation scholars. We now have more ancient texts that indicate some relatively modern additions to the Bible (e.g., Comma Johanneum). Translators used Erasmus' Greek bible, which in part, was a translation of the Vulgate rather than Greek sources. Remember the telephone game and the story became more corrupted with each iteration? Imagine now going from Greek to Latin, to Greek, to English. Besides text issues, translators opted for form above substance--possibly corrupting doctrine in favor of poetry. We are instructed to use the KJV, but a tenet of our faith admits there are translation errors. How do we reconcile this dilemma? Should we as LDS seek out a Bible that is translated more correctly? Joseph Smith said he preferred Luther's German Bible.

Joseph's cousin, George A. Smith, was 21 years old when called an apostle. He was the youngest apostle of this dispensation. George later served as a counselor to BY and was the grandfather of his namesake and later church president.