wild_card_2020

I'm not being "all-or-none" here, although I can see where you might read that from my first post. Let me try to clarify by describing the scenario as I understand it. There were some number of original written works, and they were inspired. The literal and exact Word of God. The LDS church says the copies we have today are inaccurate in comparison with those originals. (And by copies here I'm referring to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and other writings from the 2nd through 4th centuries.) What I'm asking for is the evidence in LDS literature for the corruption of the originals. How did it happen? Who did it? Things like that. Adam

This topic is a continuation of the train of thought that begin with me asking what parts of the Bible are considered by the LDS church to be inaccurate or incomplete, driven by my frustration in finding an answer on my own. The answer I received in that thread was very illuminating. I will quote a-train, as he stated it most clearly for me: To be cliche, I went "a-ha!" The issue is not one of correctly translating the the ancient texts we have, but whether those texts are themselves authentic and correct. Now, this is certainly a weighty topic. I intend to explore it in depth on my own as well as I am able. (Google is my friend!) To aid my exploration of this topic, what I ask for here is references to the LDS literature and doctrine that provides evidence that the ancient texts we have are all incorrect; that none can be considered trustworthy or accurate copies of the original writings. Thanks for your help. (And as an aside, my girlfriend says she is enjoying this as well -- her religious training so far has mainly been "do this" and "believe this", with essentially no doctrinal education, and so she is appreciative of the opportunity to explore an aspect of her faith that she hasn't given any real thought or attention.) Adam

Thanks to all who are participating for your continued responses. And I apologize if I'm being dense; it's just I've never studied Mormonism and so this is all very new to me. Like learning a new language or getting acquainted with a city you've just moved to. Okay, I agree with prisonchaplain in that only the "original" Bible was 100% accurate and inspired. Any translation is going to have errors, even if they are miniscule and don't alter the meaning of the original. I also agree that the translations we have are very accurate. Maureen and a-train, thank you. Your statements (and the page you link to, Maureen) were helpful in adding what is apparently a crucial piece of information I was missing: that JS claimed all of the ancient texts we have are corrupted and incomplete. In light of this information, my understanding of Article 8 changes. It isn't talking about "modern" "translations" such as the NASB or NIV or KJV; it's talking about the Greek and Hebrew texts we have dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries. The copies of the original writings. If the ancient texts we have are all incomplete and inaccurate, any translations of them are by definition irrelevant. So it seems to me the next step is following up on the idea that what we have is incomplete and inaccurate. While this is a continuation of my train of thought, I'm going to start a new thread to ask for help on this as I consider it to be a separate topic (accuracy of ancient texts vs. inaccurate translations of those texts). I'd like to continue this thread however to further explore my incomplete understanding of Article 8. On that note, I find the wording of Article 8 to be confusing at this point since it's talking about translations and not copies. If the critical claim is that the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts we have are themselves inaccurate, why does it use the phrase "as far as it is translated ccorrectly"? Why doesn't it say something like "as far as it has been transcribed correctly" or (more verbosely) "as far as the original inspired work has been correctly copied"? Adam

How does it serve God's purpose to allow His word to be lost and misrepresented in such a fashion for 2000 years? (Which of course is no time at all to God as he exists at all times and forever, but represents about a third of human history and the vast majority of human beings who have lived.) Why would He allow or want His word to be so corrupted? Especially, so soon after having brought His word to us in Jesus's life? I know the Bible is composed of a selected number of texts; that many other Christian writings exist that were not put in the Bible. So I can buy the argument that the Bible isn't all of God's word. But that it has been seriously compromised simply doesn't make sense to me. How do I make sense of the argument that the Bible has so many mistakes and omissions? How could this serve Him? Okay, I picked Article 8 to start with because I thought it would be easy to research. The Articles of Faith are (according to my understanding) a major element of LDS faith. So it seems to me that any statement made in them ought to be well-documented. Yet I have not found an answer to the question: where does the LDS church consider the Bible to be mistranslated? I've been told to look at the JST. But the JST isn't a translation of the Greek/Hebrew, it's a work that Joseph Smith wrote based on the KJV and his personal revelation. I'm looking for the passages where the LDS church says the translations of the original are incorrect. Am I mistaken in my assumption that the church believes the original Greek and Hebrew to be accurate and authentic? Adam

I'm not convinced this passage is an issue of doctrinal significance. While there are several textual variants of this passage, to say this is an issue of significance one would have to ignore or misinterpret many other passages in the Bible, and specifically John, that discuss the relationship between God and Jesus. What's more relevant to me here is that the JST passage itself is apparently a unique translation. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that (as far as I can determine) no other Bibles have any mention of being saved in this passage. The reason for this, it seems to me, is other Bibles are using one or another variant of the ancient Greek as a source for their translations, whereas the origins of the Joseph Smith Translation are the KJV and Joseph Smith's personal revelation, not the Greek/Hebrew texts. At this point I admit to being somewhat lost. Returning to Article 8 again, it says the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it is accurately translated. Does the LDS church accept the authenticity and accuracy of the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts? If so, how does the church reconcile the difference between the original Greek and the addition made in the JST edition? Adam

Okay, I'm aware of the JST edition. I understand it aims to correct and add to the Bible. However, the JST edition is claimed to be a work of divine inspiration, not a translation of ancient texts. What I'm talking about is Bibles that are (or at least claim to be) a translation of the original Greek/Armenian/Hebrew. Article 8 implies these translations are inaccurate. I am so far unable to find a single example of doctrinal significance. So what I'm looking for is examples where the LDS church claims translations of the ancient Greek/Armenian/Hebrew texts are incorrect, in a fashion that is doctrinally significant. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

Hi all, new member here. My new girlfriend is LDS and I'm trying to understand more about her faith, but her LDS education and background is limited pretty much to obeying the rules of the church, and lacks a doctrinal understanding. So I've done a lot of Googling and am reading a lot online, but I'm finding it difficult to find authoritative answers. Which leads to me being here -- to try to get a better understanding of her faith and its foundations. One item in particular has eluded me, to my growing frustration: Article 8 (the Bible is the word of God insofar as it is correctly translated). Despite a lot of searching and reading, so far I haven't found a reference on where, specifically, the LDS church considers the Bible to be incorrectly translated or corrupted. As clarification, I'm not looking for information about the minor variations or differences between translations, nor am I interested in comparisons with non-scholarly translations such as the Living Bible. What I'm looking for is where the LDS teaches that the Bible has been mis-translated or corrupted from the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts in a manner that is doctrinally significant. I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to ask, and if that is the case, guidance on where I should go. In any case, can someone please save me from more mostly-fruitless hours Googling and reading? Thanks! Adam