8th Article of Faith

[daenvgiell]

I am confused as to why they say, "as far as it is transated correctly"

why wouldn't be be translated correctly?

[Elgama]

the Bible has been through many forms and through many. many translations through the ages - even the Book of Mormon talks about its imperfections because of it being connected with humans, The Bible has been through many more human hands.

Decisions were taken about books were to be included and which were not etc

-Charley

[daenvgiell]

ah yes I can understand that, it's always bugged me how there are so many different versions of the bible

[Elgama]

there have been some interesting typo's over the years I think it was the 18th Century that the adulterers bible came into being when it commanded people 'Thou Shalt Commit Adultery' naturally that was a mistake. But way back in history we don't know if similar typo's in the days when the books were few and far between then became part of the gospel.

-Charley

[deseretgov]

Great explaination elgama.

[Prodigal_Son]

Yeah. Our current versions are akin to having a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy.

Plus, there are actually words in other languages which English has no word for (and vice versa) - so the translators have had to interpret it based on their opinions.

Here's an interesting factoid: you know how in the King James Version, there are a LOT of words italicized? Well they are that way because the council that King James convened couldn't decide whether or not those words were an accurate part of the translation - but several of the people on the council FELT that they were the right words to use. Since many wanted those words, but not a confident majority, they were included in italics.

When I was in Kirtland?? (I can't remember for sure - I think at the E.B. Grandin Printing Shop) there was an old Bible on display that reflected the types of changes Joseph Smith was making to the Bible... and, ironically enough, the pages that were open for display revealed that Brother Joseph had actually crossed out MOST of those italicized words as being incorrect...

I'm sure examples abound. Michael Ballam, a very intelligent man, taught himself Hebrew and Greek, so as to be able to read the older texts in their native language [by the way, the oldest copies of the Bible are still dating 1,000 years AFTER Christ (see Holland's conference talk last Fall)]. Ballam finally got his opportunity - and shares in one of his talks how VASTLY DIFFERENT he translated the first verses of the first book (Gen. 1:1 and on)... He discovered some very simple interpretive changes that dramatically change the wording - and in a way that better parallels our doctrine of the pre-existence and creation...

[Hemidakota]

An article was written back Improvement ERA, 1948, what is the Inspired Translation of the Bible and why Joseph Smith made those necessary changes. It was a prolong laborious act, he undertook doing those years. Being prosecuted within and outside the church, he managed to correct and add many key verses that was either left out or miss interrupted.

What Is the "Inspired Translation" of the Bible?

JOSEPH SMITH, the Prophet, and those associated with him, had been brought up on the teachings of the Holy Bible. It was assumed that the English Bible had been translated correctly and completely from the original manuscripts.

The teachings of the Book of Mormon with other new revelations from the Lord, convinced the Prophet that there were errors, unauthorized additions, and incomplete statements in the sacred volume of the Old and New Testaments.

This did not really seem so surprising, since the original manuscripts had not been available to the many translators of varying ability. Moreover, there would be a natural tendency to inject into the next personal explanations of passages obscure to the translators.

Such errors seemed to the Prophet, a devoted lover of truth, out of keeping with the sacred nature of the Bible. Therefore, very soon after the organization of the Church, after placing the matter before the Lord, he began the "inspired translation" of the holy scriptures. In June 1830, less than three months after the Church was organized, he had had revealed to him the "visions of Moses." In December 1830, Sidney Rigdon, who had just joined the Church, was called to act in this work as scribe to the Prophet.

The two brethren labored on the task with all possible regularity until July 21, 1833, when with divine permission the "translation and review" of the Old and New Testaments was sealed until a suitable time of publication, which unfortunately, in the troubled life of the Prophet never came.

After the death of the Prophet, Brigham Young sent Willard Richards to Emma Smith, to secure the translation which was partly in manuscript, and partly in marginal notes in the family Bible. She refused to surrender the material then, but at last in 1866 she gave the material to the committee of publications of the Reorganized Church, by whom the material was later published.

However, at the request of the Prophet, Dr. John M. Bernhisel had made a copy, both of the manuscript, and of the marginal page changes. This copy is now in the library of the Historian's Office in Salt Lake City.

It is not really correct to say that the Prophet translated the Bible. Rather, he corrected errors in the Bible, and under revelation added long statements. Nor is it really certain that the work was finally finished. Had he gone over the Bible again he probably would have made additional corrections. He seems to have given special attention to certain portions of the Bible.

But, as it stands, he performed a vast work. Drs. Sidney B. Sperry and Merrill Y. VanWagoner state that 12,650 words were added in Genesis, and that 693 verses were changed in the other books of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, these authors say that 1,453 verses were changed. In the four gospels alone, 1,036 verses were altered. Certainly the Prophet used great effort to restore the original meaning of the Bible.

Out of this mass of material only a few examples can be shown here. 1

The above mentioned work on the Book of Genesis appears as the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. It adds much information to the somewhat meager account in the Bible.

Numerous slight but important changes were made.

Exodus 32:14 says: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto the people." The inspired version reads: "And the Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them and turn away my fierce wrath. ...

Exodus 7:3 says: "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt." The inspired version reads, "And Pharaoh will harden his heart, as I said unto thee; and thou shalt multiply my signs and wonders, in the land of Egypt."

I Samuel 16:14 says: "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." The inspired version reads, "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit which was not of the Lord troubled him."

There is no need to comment upon the rational improvement in the above verses.

John 4:2 says: "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." The inspired version reads: "Though he, himself baptized not so many as his disciples." So ends a long controversy.

Melchizedek, for whom the higher, Holy Priesthood is named, is a mystical figure in the Bible. He is spoken of as a king of righteousness, King of Salem, priest of the most high God. 2 The Apostle Paul speaks of Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. 3 Little more. The inspired version however makes him a more human being. It says:

"And now, Melchisedek [Melchizedek] was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.

"And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;

"And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.

"And this Melchisedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.

"And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;

"Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.

"Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.

"And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honour, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek and blessed him." (Holy Scriptures Inspired Version, Genesis 14:33-40

The incomprehensible statement that Melchizedek was "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually," 4 is made plain and reasonable in the inspired version. "For this Melchisedec was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually." 5

Such comparisions might be multiplied. All would show the great service the Prophet Joseph Smith rendered in correcting Biblical errors, and to make the statements of the Holy Scriptures more understandable to the human mind. The "inspired translation" is one of the mighty evidences of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith.

—J.A.W.

[bytor2112]

I often think of it as how people translate the Bible individually.. Meaning our individual interpretation and understanding of Biblical passages in light of modern revelation. Before the Restoration, mankinds understanding of the plan of salvation and the nature of God and our relationship to him was different than what we now know as a result of the BOM and the Restoration.

[rameumptom]

The early books of the Old Testament were believed to have had several authors, now named J (Yahwist), E (elohist), P (Priest), D (Deuteronomist), and R (redactor).

J and E were the earliest versions, and were combined together in Jerusalem in the days of King Josiah, probably. We can see evidences of this today, when we note that there are two Creation stories (Genesis 1 and 2), and the Flood story is two stories mashed together. Even Moses is told to have gone twice to Meribah and strike a rock to get water. In one of those events, an angel chastised him, while in the other, the angel guided him to the rock.

J was an author in Jerusalem about 800 BC. E was an author a few years later in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. They had differing political agendas. J was focused on the temple and the Aaronic Priests running the show. E was focused on a people exiled from the temple, and so focused on the Abrahamic tradition of High Priests sacrificing in the wilderness on altars.

When the Northern Kingdom was destroyed and carried off to Assyria, it is believed that their sacred record found its way to Jerusalem. Eventually J and E would be combined, so both were probably used during the period 700-600 BC, to determine the will of God. It is suggested by some LDS scholars that the source for E may have been the Brass Plates of Laban!

This came to a head in King Josiah's day, when his priests claimed to have found the book of Deuteronomy in the temple. This book, as we have it today, is part ancient, and part reconstructed in the day of Josiah. The book focused on the temple worship, and caused Josiah to destroy all the wilderness altars, even those used to worship Yahweh/Jehovah. These Priests also made other changes to the holy word, so we now add the D and P versions to E and J.

Jeremiah seems to have been a priest of Moses (what we would call Melchizedek Priesthood), according to Thomas Friedman, in his awesome book, Who Wrote the Bible? In it, King David had a priest both from Aaron and Moses as his guides. When Solomon ascended to the throne, he exiled the priest of Moses, and gave full power to the Aaronic priests over the temple. Jeremiah would cry out against the Priests and Deuteronomists, partially because they changed the temple ceremony with the temple reconstruction and Josian reforms. They removed the concept of a Mother in Heaven (Wisdom), the Tree of Life, and the belief in angelic visitations (see Margaret Barker's writings on this). Jeremiah attacked them on their focus on temple-only worship. He brought in the Rekhabites, a nomadic family that worshiped God in the wilderness, as did Abraham. Jeremiah showed Jerusalem that the family of Rekhab had been faithful, when they had abandoned God's worship.

They rejected a worship involving continuing revelation, visions, and a wilderness theology; for a temple aristocracy that rejected revelation and miracles.

Interestingly, Lehi dwelt and worshiped in the wilderness, just as the Rekhabites and Abraham had. Lehi's visions in 1 Nephi 1 and then the Vision of the Tree of Life (1 Ne 8-15) show us a reconstruction of the ancient temple endowment that was removed from the temple in Jerusalem. It follows the same views as the author E had, and that Jeremiah condemned the Jews over.

After the Jews fell and returned to the land, the priest Ezra redacted the scriptures. As the Redactor, he took all the varying versions of scripture and tried to compile them together.

The story of the New Testament is similar, with competing Christian groups competing to get their version of holy writings accepted.

[Justice]

By way of promoting faith, a group of people took the Isaiah chapters that appear in the Book of Mormon and translated them to Hebrew and compared them to the the Isaiah chapters from the Old Testament in their Hebrew form.

What they found was short of astounding.

They were able to determine how some of the mistakes were made in the Old Testament book of Isaiah, and were also able to show how the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters were a more accurate rendition of the Hebrew. They identified some Hebrew shortcut methods and abbreviations that changed the Old Testament book of Isaiah.

I don't remember the exact name of the book I read it in. We are moving and it is packed away, so I can't find it. But, it was something like "The Isaiah Chapters."

[Hemidakota]

Do you remember the author's name?

[Justice]

No, but I'll look for it.

[MrNirom]

Here is another prime example: Written by E. T. Tennyson

Only such a WHIRLWIND could start whirling "waterspouts" powerful enough to siphon up and put in orbit the mighty waters of the sea, and while Revelation (16:18) describes it as "such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty and so great", it is obvious that even this vivid description does not give us a conception of its terribleness, simply because there has never been anything upon this earth to compare with it! And while the above description is given in the translations as that of an earthquake, it is now obvious that this is a mistranslation! For the word rendered "earthquake" in the English translations is from the Greek prime verb "seio", and Strong"s Greek Dictionary (page 64) defines it as "A COMMOTION, i.e. OF THE AIR, A GALE!"

This same Greek word is rendered "TEMPEST" at Matthew 8:24, the TEMPEST that threatened to sink the ship on which Jesus slept, and no one believes this was an earthquake simply because the evidence is overwhelming that it was a tornado, hurricane or whirlwind, and not an earthquake. For when the disciples called Jesus from his sleep, he did not rebuke an "earthquake", but Matthew says "he arose and rebuked the WINDS and the sea, and there was great CALM" (Verse 26)! Nothing was said about an earthquake, because there was no earthquake! This TEMPEST ("seio") was a tornado, hurricane or whirlwind, and as conclusive proof, note that the men marvelled "that even the WINDS and the sea obey him" (Verse 27).

So, if the TEMPEST (from the Greek "seio") of Matthew's record was a tornado or whirlwind, we may be sure the TEMPEST (from the Greek "seio", mistranslated "earthquake") of Revelation is not an earthquake, but that this description is that of the "SO GREAT A WHIRLWIND" of Armageddon! Not only does the prophet tell us so, but mark carefully that it is "poured out into the AIR", and that it is accompanied by "thunders, lightenings, and a great hail", all of which go with tornados or whirlwinds, never with earthquakes!

[rameumptom]

Actually earthquakes CAN cause disturbances in the weather pattern. Large shifts caused by volcanic activity often includes earthquake temblors. The amount of stuff tossed into the air can cause storms, great winds, and even tornadoes. It can also create tsunamis, which can devastate coastal lands for several miles inland.

[Prodigal_Son]

The travesties in early 3 Nephi were a Type of what will come when Christ makes His return. With that in mind, I don't doubt that we will see myriad tempests and natural disasters of ALL kinds...

[bytor2112]

Like hail the size of cars......

[Prodigal_Son]

Like hail the size of cars......

You just have to go to Kansas to get that! :lol:

[MrNirom]

Actually earthquakes CAN cause disturbances in the weather pattern. Large shifts caused by volcanic activity often includes earthquake temblors. The amount of stuff tossed into the air can cause storms, great winds, and even tornadoes. It can also create tsunamis, which can devastate coastal lands for several miles inland.

Wow.. so the translation was correct? is that what you are saying? That it should continue to be called "earthquakes" rather than "Whirlwinds"? I have yet to see a earthquake cause great winds enough to actually remove water from the oceans and put it into orbit around the earth. Kinda like the rings of Saturn.

Imagine the power of the winds to be able to do that. That is what I would call a Whirlwind! :-)

[rameumptom]

There are no whirlwinds strong enough to put water up in orbit, either. So, here you have a strawman. Even hurricanes, which can carry lots of water with them, do not put tons of water into orbit. Rather it storms/rains itself out over a vast area.

[MrNirom]

There are no whirlwinds strong enough to put water up in orbit, either. So, here you have a strawman. Even hurricanes, which can carry lots of water with them, do not put tons of water into orbit. Rather it storms/rains itself out over a vast area.

Ok.. I stand corrected. God does not have that power or ability... my bad.

[rameumptom]

Once again, a straw man! Of course, God has that ability to do so. But where is the scriptural evidence for something like that? And where is the scientific evidence for it, also?

It is easy to claim that "God performed a miracle" to cause something to happen. Why should something be so abnormally different from how God normally works? Were the destructions and 3 days of darkness something that God caused through a supernatural miracle? Or did he use natural means to accomplish it?

[MrNirom]

Once again, a straw man! Of course, God has that ability to do so. But where is the scriptural evidence for something like that? And where is the scientific evidence for it, also?

It is easy to claim that "God performed a miracle" to cause something to happen. Why should something be so abnormally different from how God normally works? Were the destructions and 3 days of darkness something that God caused through a supernatural miracle? Or did he use natural means to accomplish it?

We are speaking about a revelation that was given to John concerning the future and Armageddon... not about something in the past. This revelation tells of what will happen. Just to assume that because for most of the history of earth that the magnitude of the storms was a level 1 to 5.. does not mean there is not one that could be rated a 50. The revelation just says it will happen! So either we believe it... or we don't.

I think the flood of the world at the time for Noah is a prime example of the way it can be as opposed to the way it is. It never happened before... and it never happened again. So I think you would say that this is NOT the way God normally works.

[Snow]

I am confused as to why they say, "as far as it is transated correctly"

why wouldn't be be translated correctly?

Er, uh, hmmm.... maybe someone did it wrong?

[Hemidakota]

Wow.. so the translation was correct? is that what you are saying? That it should continue to be called "earthquakes" rather than "Whirlwinds"? I have yet to see a earthquake cause great winds enough to actually remove water from the oceans and put it into orbit around the earth. Kinda like the rings of Saturn.

Imagine the power of the winds to be able to do that. That is what I would call a Whirlwind! :-)

'The earth tremble' or 'divide asunder' is the same as Earthquake to us today. I do suspect that many of the Pacific Rim Volcanoes were active during that time. Tornadoes or water spouts probably occurred based on shift in the weather when the Earth groaned under duress.

[Hemidakota]

We are speaking about a revelation that was given to John concerning the future and Armageddon... not about something in the past. This revelation tells of what will happen. Just to assume that because for most of the history of earth that the magnitude of the storms was a level 1 to 5.. does not mean there is not one that could be rated a 50. The revelation just says it will happen! So either we believe it... or we don't.

I think the flood of the world at the time for Noah is a prime example of the way it can be as opposed to the way it is. It never happened before... and it never happened again. So I think you would say that this is NOT the way God normally works.

If GOD was going perform something of the order of the deluge, I highly doubt it will be left in nature [Earth Physical Laws] hands. There always an element of outside or unknown control at this point that we cannot even fathom. If it was left up to her – meaning the Earth - it would never happen since she bound by higher laws than what is called Natural Laws that she cannot cross.

Looking at the deluge, we are not told or have any clarity of written record, geological landscape of Noah’s era to see exactly what was it like before the deluge. Many of the science community and within the church will assumed today’s landscape were the same prior to Noah time. This assumption of a static earth is not path I would venture down. Even during those three hours of earth groaning under the weight of greatest sin committed in murder the Only Begotten Son of GOD, we can see evidence of further changes to the earth written on western continent. If I could compare it to a living human body, we live on a ever changing dynamic world.