Jenda

(In reality, nobody edited antishock's post. It happened by the way he typed his points. He was listing something in an ABC fashion, and when he got to B, he typed B ) (without the space) and it became B). No editing was necessary.)

Thanks for sharing that awesome story. :)

LOL...you have got to be kidding me...NO? Well, if you are possitive that those fellas know what they are talking about better than a prophet of God...then you have made your choice. But for me and my house...I believe the history and science books like I believe toilet paper will hold together in water. You crack me up! Do you ever take modern medicine? Use modern appliances relying on scientific principles to work? Did you have your babies in a hospital? Would you eat herbs and rely solely on a preisthood blessing? or take the drugs and follow the regime your oncologist presribed if you found out you had cancer? Do you think historians are liars? Would you prefer to live a life IGNORANT OF HISTORY AND BEREFT OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES IN HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY???? Would you REALLY? Tch!!!!!!!. . . . . . . .bloody social recidivist. . . . . . . Biz, I will give you the benefit of most of your post, but the question about historians (and I would even throw in archeologists) just doesn't fit with the rest of science. Historians, and archeologists, at best, guess at things. Sometimes they are wild stabs in the dark. I have a good friend who is an archeologist, and she said that they make assumptions and build theories that best fit those remains that they have excavated, or, in the case of historians, the writings that they have available from the time. Most science is not exact, and that is especially true for historians/archeologists.

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM. The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO. They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave. When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used. A printer version was created because parts of the manuscript were being released for publication in news papers and othere such things while the printing plates for the Book of Mormon were being prepared for printing. The printer version was released to the printer in sections (just enough for setting the type) and then returned with a new section released to the printer. The biggest difference between RLDS and LDS versions have to do with foot notes (including cross references) and breakdown of verses. Until recently the two orginazations have not been willing to assist each other in reasearching the origional publications. Neither the RLDS or LDS have admitted having the origional "golden plates". The Traveler The Zarahemla Research Foundation which prints the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM is not a church-sponsored group. The person who did the research and publication financed it himself. If nothing else, it is extremely easy to read, which is a huge plus. It has a large introduction that explains the Hebrew poetry and Chiasmus, as well as the addition of grammatical (don't want to say corrections because they aren't) tools that help delineate the reflective portions of the text. The main difference between the RLDS and the LDS BoMs is the versification. The RLDS BoM maintains the original versification while the LDS changed it to make the chapters shorter. The RCE follows the RLDS versification. The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when Joseph Smith died (and he was secretly buried in close proximity), and when Louis Bidamon opened up the cornerstone when they moved Joseph's and Hyrum's bodies, much of the manuscript had deteriorated. He literally tore the rest of the manuscript in half and gave half to the LDS and half to the RLDS. As the RLDS was a new organization at the time, and did not have the capacity to preserve it, it deteriorated beyond ability to save. The part the LDS have fared better. The RLDS own the printers manuscript in it's full form. When the person doing the RCE did the research, he compared what we now have with what is in what's left of the original manuscript and the printer's manuscript. The greatest number of changes seem to have been made in the first part of I Nephi, which is the section of the original manuscript that is still intact (luckily). Blessed, your version is the 1966 Revised Authorized Edition.

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM.The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO. They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE