What about Jesus?

[declanr]

We do believe and have shared why we believe.

And because I believe, I don't go looking for answers for why not to believe.

So, no I can't share with you any books or writings of any kind that would dispute what you have quoted.

I don't see the point -- how I received witness of Christ's existence then and now puts me on solid ground and no amount of reading can dispute what I know to be true.

Blind faith, maybe, but I do know without a shadow of a doubt, both in my mind (knowledge) and in my heart (spirit). My knowledge comes from the scriptures and my heart knows because my prayers about my knowledge have been answered.:)

This poster really drives home the principle behind why I am searching in the way that I am. in the same sentence this person said their faith is blind, but then said they "know without a shadow of a doubt." This is extremely contradictory, and insulting to the human intellect. What this quote really means, is candyprpl believes because of faith. That is fine, but lets call it what it is. The presence of an idea or belief in your consciousness does not constitute knowledge, a person can have false ideas and false beliefs. If one is to acquire knowledge, one must have a method of distinguishing truth from falsity.

As I have said before simply reading a book, praying, and getting a personal subjective feeling/validation about those thoughts has led billions of people to other faiths, how is their faith less valid? If you say its not, then by this standard, no faith has more or less truth than any other, and it doesn't matter to God if you are LDS, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, etc. This is why I ask these questions, and bother to do actual research.

Dec

[candyprpl]

I did say blind faith, maybe.

When I read a history book on (let say) WWII and check all the data the author has come up with to establish his words -- does not my feelings play a role in whether or not I believe he has done his research sufficiently? I say they do. One's intellect is often guided by feelings. Without our feelings we would believe everything we read. I'm not a robot. I refused to be programmed like a computer.

[pam]

Having a knowledge by faith and having a knowledge by intellect are two different things. I don't have to have a knowledge by intellect to truly believe in something. That is where the difference is.

In the quest for both faith and knowledge, we need to maintain humility. Jacob taught:

“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves. 2nd Nephi 9:28-29

If we rely totally on intellect and "proof" we will never have the full understanding.

[a-train]

Oh well, ladies and germs. I guess there is not a shred of historical evidence. Your just going to have to actually see if you can get a personal look at God and a witness for yourself.

And, the next time a Christian tells me to show him the golden plates, I'll tell him to show me the original new testament.

-a-train

[abqfriend]

The vast majority of people in the world are led to a faith by their birth-they are in one sense born into it. The chances are if you are born in Saudi Arabia, you will be of the Islamic Faith. In Tibet-Buddhist. In Italy-Catholic, In Utah-LDS In Greece-Orthodox.

If you are born to a family with both parents as atheists-that may be your start.

I am glad you are searching. The questions you ask have been asked for hundreds of years.

Reading and studying about different faith traditions and talking to people in those faith traditions may be of help to you.

I encourage you in your study. I encourage you to visit different houses of worship to get an idea of the faith tradition of others.

"Truth" for one person may not be truth for another.

Truth is a subjective thing.

-and that for some-is where faith enters in.

May you find the Way, the Truth and the Life.

-Carol

As I have said before simply reading a book, praying, and getting a personal subjective feeling/validation about those thoughts has led billions of people to other faiths, how is their faith less valid? If you say its not, then by this standard, no faith has more or less truth than any other, and it doesn't matter to God if you are LDS, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, etc. This is why I ask these questions, and bother to do actual research.

Dec

[Guest ceeboo]

Oh well, ladies and germs. I guess there is not a shred of historical evidence. Your just going to have to actually see if you can get a personal look at God and a witness for yourself.

And, the next time a Christian tells me to show him the golden plates, I'll tell him to show me the original new testament.

-a-train

Hey a-train,

I was wondering, can you show me the golden plates ??? :):)

[Elgama]

I think when you look for ultimate proof in any academic study you begin to realise there very often isn't any, the more I learn about subject the less I know for sure.

-Charley

[pam]

Hey a-train,

I was wondering, can you show me the golden plates ??? :):)

Can you show him the original New Testament?

[japacific]

I just think its a big coincidence how all these religious views can not be proven, so require faith. Meanwhile facts are out there that don't need to be disputed between religionists and non religionists. It isn't like its the opinion of religionists against the opinion of scientists. Its the opinion of religionists against what has been proved. The facts speak for themselves.

[Elgama]

I just think its a big coincidence how all these religious views can not be proven, so require faith. Meanwhile facts are out there that don't need to be disputed between religionists and non religionists. It isn't like its the opinion of religionists against the opinion of scientists. Its the opinion of religionists against what has been proved. The facts speak for themselves.

you need to give me an example of a fact and an opinion? I have yet to come across any facts in science that could not enrich the understanding of my religion? and certainly within the LDS theology there is an awful lot of room for scientific explanation and fact. But I have never gone past year 2 of any kind of degree lol

-Charley

[a-train]

My daughter uses the golden plates to sit higher at the dinner table. I think she left them on the floor again, I'll send them. What is your address and will you accept a $125 COD charge for the cost of shipping?

-a-train

PS, if you don't have a hand-truck, I advise getting one before the plates arrive. Also, if you do use them to seat your children at the dinner table, I would advise a very strong chair.

[Hemidakota]

Dec, I am still working on your reply in my off time. However, some of which I will do it by PM.

[declanr]

Dec, I am still working on your reply in my off time. However, some of which I will do it by PM.

Excellent, thanks again.

Dec

[ColorMEreal]

After all the llife lessons I've gone through in this earthly experiance, I've come to a firm conclusion. What is most real in this world is "what is felt."... It's a "knowing" feeling inside, a "timeless truth" that shapes each testimony. It's called Faith. Faith was never meant to be perfect. It only takes a tiny mustard seed of Faith to begin the journey towards greater Truths.

It's not something you can stumble upon by accident or grow in your heart over night. Each person has to individual choice to search it out for themselves, or not to...

[Hemidakota]

Thank you!

Delcar, after reading this several times, I wonder what would be the best approach to answer this man’ assumption or speculation, what he feels is fictional and hearsay. How can we prove the stories of the bible? How can we even prove the stories of history are accurate and dealt from first-hand and not someone else fabrication of fables? How can we, find that truth, and would know for sure? Many, many questions Delcar that we can raise from fabricated stories of history of the earth to the latest documentaries of what happened only sixty years ago, can be concluded based on his assumption, are know more than hearsay. Yes? Then, what is truth?

The premise of his claimed to prove that Jesus is fiction, the account were second hand or may not exist at all by using lawyer tactics, is saying the Bible account is hearsay, is also filled much conjecture. I don’t know if he went back and reread his writing since much early history is biblical base and proving that wrong would be a mistake.

His assumption is based on someone else’s work and did not seeked the Godhead for any real determination what is truth and what is fiction. That itself is poor research and revealing his own weakness of the scriptures. I assumed, he is a total believer of the fable stories of evolution. Even our early earth history about cavemen, and probably believes admissions of Astro physicists on how this planet was formed also and the Big Bang Theory. I wonder he research his own beliefs to determine whether they are fictional or not? You find, even I won’t side with worldly science or claimed clerics of theology. I rather go to the source to find that answer. Yes! It does take much more than regular faith in receiving that answer. Not many here will use this approach; this is why I never worry about those who claimed to be followers of Christ and at the same time, trying to disapprove the Master’s own church. Unless one does walk with GOD or HIS Son, called by Him to be His friends, you can assume, these people are working under there own admissions and not the Savior. Declar, we have them on this forum.

Let us stop and reason here for a second. If I believe that Joseph Smith truly was that Prophet called by the Savior Himself, then I would believe his corrections to the biblical scriptures are precise also. One faithful belief follows the other. If those accounts were not true, being His prophet, he would have removed them or talked about them as being inaccurate and fictional. However, he didn’t. That itself is a self-admission, the biblical account are not fictional and noting Joseph own first vision of the Savior, proving there truly is a Godhead and a Savior. Joseph witnessed not just the Savior, Holy Ghost, GOD the FATHER, but most of the fictional characters that Jim listed in his writings. The difference between Joseph and Jim, Joseph asked and received the answers. Jim, on the other hand, assumes those with a academic printed form called a degree in theology, overrides a prophet without a witness. So, what is hearsay, assumption of clerics or witness for yourself? This is up to you to choose that path at the crossroad.

Delcar, we have those claimed theologist in the church that will put Job, as a fictional character. Next line, they will state, they are followers of Christ and Joseph Smith. What they failed to realize, in the Doctrine and Covenants, if Job was a fictional character, why would the Lord talk about Job? This disturbs me with those in our own academia who themselves’ lack the ability to research and ask the Savior, that follows the same guideline as Jim character. As you see, we have them on both sides of the fence.

The best place to start, to find the answers for this claimed fables or Jim’s claimed fictional accounts, is to read the materials for yourself. Next, you will need a sincere desire to ask the same question as Paul of Taurus, Joseph Smith, and even I have done before GOD. It will only come by changing one character to be in conformance of the Master life. It will not come if you precede the same path as the world. You will not receive an answer as Paul or Joseph did. It will take patience and some personal trials before receiving that answer. But, I will attest, it will come and when it does, the Holy Ghost will bear witness that you will not deny. It will come a moment when you least expect it and know, it is His own voice that will call you by name. What better reward in this world could you ask for then in hearing the Master voice as Paul and Joseph did? As Moses did…As Abraham did….As Enoch did….As Noah did…each one was called by the Savior to be His friends. You can, I promise you, receive the same if the desire is one who is seeked the truth.

Last, I will add over the next few days, posts concerning the making of the bible by those apostated clerics and pagans. Yes! There are many errors. Yes! There are not in synchronically. Yes! There are missing accounts that should be in the scriptures that was not canonized by these two groups in the fourth century. I will say, there were over 5000 scrolls that were overlooked and not added for one reason or another. I do believe even the Songs of Solomon in the Old Testament is not the work of GOD but was added by this group. Why? I have no clue. We are even missing the works of Adam through Noah. I do know that Brother of Jared brought those works with them to the new world. There were much writings that will open new doors of enlightenment as Abraham discussed.

May the Lord bless you that will begin this journey of seeking the truth and I will promise you, once you tasted that fruit, you will find it sweet and forefeeling. Take care.

[japacific]

I've done some study on the subject. It sounds like there isn't any evidence that says he exists. My opinion is that he did exist but that he was just a man who started a movement. No one can really say anything for sure about that, but this is why I have formed that opinion.

The Jewish opponents of Christianity never tried to argue that he never existed. They said he was a fraud and liar among other things. I think they would have tried to argue he was a mythological figure if there was any possibility that was the case. It is worth noting that those Jewish apologists themselves lived several generations after when Jesus would have lived.

Among the reasons I have why I don't think he is the all-powerful-creator-of-the-universe--god model is because if he was going around walking on water, bringing people back to life, dying and coming back to life himself, you think the Romans would have recorded something about him. I would actually expect there to be A LOT of things written about him. The records we have of him in the Bible as most of you probably know are written by people long after Jesus' time who never saw him themselves anyway and at best only agreed on some of the stories they wrote about him.

[Hemidakota]

No one can really say anything for sure about that, but this is why I have formed that opinion.

Yes they can. Never assume your speculation is the world's opinion.

[Hemidakota]

Selected Writings of Robert J. Matthews: Gospel Scholars Series by Robert J. Matthews

"A Bible! A Bible!" How the Lord's Word Has Gone Forth

Consider for a moment the blessing of having the scriptures so readily available. Today Bibles are plentiful. Most of us have at least one written in our own language that we can read and study with little effort. But Bibles have not always been so readily available. In 2 Kgs. 22-23, written of a time around 620 b.c., is the account of temple workmen finding an abandoned copy of the law of God. This discovery seemed to have been a surprise; copies of the scriptures were apparently hard to come by then. King Josiah read these writings, discovered that many religious practices of his people did not conform with the recorded commandments, and decided to make changes. He reemphasized the Passover feast, and conditions improved for a time in Jerusalem.

A few years later, Lehi and his family were commanded to leave Jerusalem and take with them a copy of the scriptures. Book of Mormon readers remember the efforts of Nephi and his brothers to obtain from Laban the plates of brass, which contained a record similar to our Old Testament down to that time (600 b.c.). Laban did not want to part with his copy of the scriptures even after he had been handsomely paid for it, but the Lord's interest was so keen on the matter that he explained to Nephi that it was "better that one man [Laban] should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Ne. 4:13). As the account in 1 Ne. 4-5 implies, copies of the scriptures in any form were scarce.

King Benjamin, recognizing the importance of written scriptures, told his sons that without the brass plates the people would have suffered in spiritual ignorance, "for it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates" (Mosiah 1:4).

In contrast, those who came with Mulek from Jerusalem to America about 589 b.c. did not bring any scriptures, and consequently they slipped into mental and spiritual darkness (see Omni 1:14-17). While it is possible that the Mulekites failed to take the scriptures with them primarily out of neglect, it is more likely there were few copies of the scriptures around to take (see 1 Ne. 4-5).

In about 520 b.c., Ezra the scribe, after bringing the people of Judah back to the land of Judea from their seventy-year captivity in Babylon, gathered them together so he could read the Old Testament to them. He translated as he read because the scriptures were written in Hebrew and the younger Jews spoke only Aramaic, the language of Babylon. Probably for the first time in their lives the Jews heard and understood the scriptures in their own tongue, and they wept and rejoiced (see Neh. 8).

These examples lead us to believe that having the scriptures readily available and in our own language is a blessing that most people in bygone days have not enjoyed. And yet the Bible is not only recorded on paper for reading, but also on tape for hearing, in Braille for feeling, and even on microfilm. It has been translated into thousands of languages and is available in book form in a multitude of sizes and bindings.

The Lord said to Nephi that in our day, the last days, many would say, "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." To them the Lord responded: "What do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the [Jewish prophets], and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto [them]?" (2 Ne. 29:3-4).

The question seems to be, Do we appreciate what it means to have our own personal copy of the Bible?

The Latin Vulgate

The original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In a.d. 382, Pope Damascus persuaded Eusebius Sofronius Heironymous (commonly known as St. Jerome), perhaps the most capable Bible scholar of the time, to translate the scriptures into Latin. This translation, called the Vulgate because it was in the "vulgar" or common tongue of the Latin people, was used in European countries where Catholicism was the dominant religion. Even with all his efforts and learning, however, Jerome could not avoid making some errors and misinterpretations. But of even greater importance, over the next thousand years more changes crept into the many versions of the Vulgate that were made by hand. 1

A Bible in English

During the Middle Ages, few northern Europeans understood the Latin scriptures, and copies of the Bible were scarce. Sometimes even the local priests knew little of the Bible. The type of church service did not contribute to much reading anyway, as the emphasis was on celebrating the mass rather than preaching the word of God. Many of the poor people could not read at all; thus, concentrated, sustained, and regular study of the Bible was out of the question for most people.

Still, through the centuries, many wondered why the scriptures could not be translated into different languages so everyone could read and benefit. The ancient Hebrews had been taught by the prophets in their own language, and the Greeks had been taught by Paul in their native tongue. Why could it not be so with the English, the French, the Germans?

Let us now look at the momentous events that gave us the Bible in English—one of the most important of the instruments that helped to bring about the restoration of the gospel.

John Wycliffe (1320-84)

Although others had translated portions of the Bible into English, Oxford scholar John Wycliffe was the first to make the entire Bible available in an English translation. His efforts to translate and distribute the Bible have earned him the title "Morning Star of the Reformation."

A Bible in English had been Wycliffe's goal for years. Every leisure moment during his life was spent translating the scriptures into English. He said: "See [pointing to a table], it is there I sit not only by day, but often far into the night. Just a few lines only will sometimes cost me hours and days of study before I can satisfy myself as to the correct rendering. . . . If God spare my life another year, I hope to put the entire Bible in English into the hands of the copyists." 2

Because Wycliffe had extensive knowledge of Latin, but not of Hebrew or Greek, he made his translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate and not from the original languages of the scriptures.

Handwritten Bibles

Since Wycliffe lived before the invention of movable-type printing, his translation was available in handwritten form only. This made copies very expensive. One historian reports that "a copy of the Bible cost from 40-60 pounds for the writing only. It took an expert copyist about 10 months to complete it." 3

Since few could afford to own a handmade Bible, Wycliffe and his followers traveled the countryside with Bible manuscripts for the people to read. Sometimes the people would borrow or rent the scriptures for a day, or even for an hour, because they could not afford to buy a copy. It is said that a load of hay was the going price to rent a Bible for an hour. 4

Early copies of Wycliffe's Bible were written on large sheets of paper, but when authorities threatened to prosecute and even burn at the stake those who possessed them, Wycliffe made smaller copies so they could be more easily concealed. 5 The preface to the Wycliffe Bible contains a prayer that shows the spirit and circumstances under which Wycliffe and his associates labored: "God grant to us all, grace to know well and keep well the holy writ, and suffer joyfully some pains for it at the last." 6 Often when a brave soul was burned at the stake (joyfully or not), he or she would go to the flames with a piece of the Bible dangling from a cord about his or her neck.

Although Wycliffe suffered ostracism and persecution for his work, he escaped martyrdom, died a natural death in 1384 at the age of sixty-four, and was buried at Lutterworth, England. Forty-four years later his enemies exhumed his body, burned it, and put his ashes in the sea.

It is clear that Wycliffe's Bible, with its gracefully simple and direct language, was intended for the plain folk and not for scholars. He was not content merely to have the Bible translated; he wanted it to be understood, and he wanted multiple copies. It is reported that more than 150 copies of his small-sized, handwritten Bibles survive today. When we consider that authorities burned as many copies as they could lay their hands upon, the survivors are evidence of the extensive circulation of the books and the value placed upon them by their owners.

William Tyndale (1492-1536)

A century passed between John Wycliffe's death and the coming of William Tyndale, the next great biblical translator. During that time John Gutenberg invented movable-type printing and printed the Latin Vulgate Bible. It took Gutenberg and his associates about seven or eight years to print the first copy 7 and more than twenty years from their first experimentation with movable type and better kinds of paper and ink. Some reports say that Gutenberg died penniless and in debt, having devoted his life to developing a process that would change the course of the world forever.

It was into this changed world that William Tyndale, destined to become the "father" of our present English Bible, was born. As had Wycliffe, he became a scholar at Oxford. Trained in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, Tyndale saw the need for and was able to make an English translation of the Bible directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Tyndale was a popular teacher who often turned to his Hebrew and Greek texts to refute his opponents, showing that in some instances the Latin Vulgate Bible they used had been translated incorrectly. But he noticed that after he had taught a group and moved on, the priests would come and turn those people away from what he had taught them. The people generally did not have the scriptures in their own tongue and were at the mercy of the priests for their knowledge of religion.

Seeing that his teachings were being overturned, Tyndale decided to arm the common people with a Bible they could read, reasoning, "If [English] Christians possessed the Holy Scriptures in their own tongue, they could of themselves withstand these attacks. Without the Bible it is impossible to establish the people in truth. . . . Christians must read the New Testament [for themselves] in their own tongue." 8 He also said, "I had perceived by experience how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scriptures were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and the meaning of the text." 9

Once, when engaged in earnest debate with a learned clergyman over giving the common people a Bible they could understand, Tyndale said, "If God spare my life, I will take care that ere many years the boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost." 10 With such bold expression, clergy and state officials continued their persecution against Tyndale.

Seeing that he was opposed on every hand, Tyndale fled to various places in England to avoid arrest and possible death. He appealed to the bishop of London for official permission to translate the Bible into English but was denied. It soon became apparent that there was no place in England to make an English translation of the Bible from the original tongues, so in 1524 Tyndale went to Germany. There he lived very modestly and in seclusion. Soon he completed his translation of the New Testament and asked for publication of three thousand copies.

Because English-language Bibles could not openly be marketed in England, the first copies were smuggled into the British Isles from Belgium. When British government and church authorities learned that Tyndale's New Testament was being sold locally, they were furious. The bishop of London called the translation "a pestiferous and most pernicious poison." 11 The various bishops subscribed money to buy all available copies and conducted public burnings of Tyndale's Bible. This exercise was so thorough that only three copies of this first Tyndale New Testament are known to be in existence today.

Following publication of his translation of the New Testament, Tyndale commenced a translation of the Old Testament. The persecutions continued, and Tyndale was betrayed by a supposed friend, kidnapped, and put into prison near Brussels, where he suffered mentally and physically for eighteen months until 6 October 1536, when he was taken from his cell and tied to a stake. There he uttered a loud prayer: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" 12 referring to King Henry VIII, who had ignored efforts to grant his personal and religious freedom. Tyndale was then strangled to death and burned.

The Reformation—A New Attitude about the Bible

As more and more people came to own and study the English translations of Wycliffe and Tyndale, the Bible became an increasingly powerful influence. Even in England, Tyndale's work became more accepted, and shortly after he died, copies of his Bible even found their way into the household of King Henry VIII.

For the next seventy years, the political and religious complexions of England seesawed from Protestantism to Catholicism and back to Protestantism with each change of monarch. Henry VIII had established the Church of England with himself, as king, the earthly leader and "defender of the faith." After Henry's death in 1547, his ten-year-old son, Edward VI, was king for a few years and Protestantism prospered. But Mary, Edward's successor, tried to restore Catholicism to England, and she ordered circulation of all English translations of the Bible to cease. Elizabeth I followed Mary, bringing with her a return to Protestantism. With the change in emphasis throughout the Protestant world, the preaching of the Bible became a major feature of church service. This influenced the architecture of church buildings, and the pulpit for preaching replaced the altar, upon which the mass was formerly celebrated as the focus of attention.

The King James Version

When James I followed Elizabeth to the throne in 1603, Tyndale had been dead sixty-seven years and there had been several revisions of the English Bible. The principal versions were the Coverdale Bible (named after its translator), the Great Bible (named for its size), the Geneva Bible (named for its place of printing), and the Bishop's Bible (authorized by the Church of England clergy). All drew heavily from Tyndale's translation, but each favored different religious points of view. The Geneva Bible contained footnotes and marginal notes that favored Puritanism, but its slant was antagonistic toward the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the Church of England, and the universities.

The Geneva Bible was the version used by Shakespeare and the Pilgrim fathers; it also came to America on the Mayflower. It was the first to use italics for words not in the manuscripts, to print each verse as a separate paragraph for convenience of concordances, and to use a sign (¶) to designate main concepts. 13

The Geneva Bible was very popular with the people but was annoying to the bishops of the Church of England. The Bishop's Bible was the clergy's answer to the Geneva Bible, but it was so biased that it left the Puritans unhappy. No Bible translation was accepted by everyone.

As a consequence, in January 1604, King James I convened a conference to settle differences between these groups. A proposal was made for a new translation to be authorized by King James as the official Bible of England.

This new translation was eventually made by committees of scholars assigned to various parts of the Bible. The translation came off the press in 1611 and was called the Authorized Version in Britain and the King James Version in America, the latter reflecting the political differences of the American colonies and England.

Although the King James Version is the hallmark of English Bibles, it is in reality a revision of earlier English translations. In a lengthy introduction to the first edition, the translators explained that "we shouldn't need to make a new translation nor yet to make of a bad one a good one—but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, [to make] one principal good one." 14 About 92 percent of Tyndale survived in the King James Version. And Tyndale borrowed much from Wycliffe.

Not all editions of the King James Version have been identical to the first edition. For example, the number of words in italics (words not found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) increased considerably through the years until about 1870. The 1611 book of Matthew contained 43 italicized words; the present edition has at least 583. 15 There have also been modernizations in spelling, punctuation, and pronoun usage.

The King James Version of the Bible is recognized worldwide for its beauty of expression and general accuracy, given the limitations of the manuscripts from which it was translated. It is the version the English-speaking members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have used since the beginning of the dispensation of the fulness of times.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

With the restoration of divine priesthood authority and the reestablishment of the Church of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, there came also the restoration of ancient scriptures. Not only were we to have a Bible, but also a Book of Mormon and other sacred records. The revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith made clear that the King James Version, great as it was, did not contain all that the ancient manuscripts had once contained. Many plain and precious things had been lost (see 1 Ne. 13). It was not so much a matter of translation of languages as it was a faulty transmission of the text. The King James Version is thus a remarkable vestige of an even more remarkable record of the gospel that was preached anciently.

With the Restoration, another revision of the English Bible was in order, not by a scholar but by a prophet. And it would come not from an ancient manuscript but from direct revelation of the same Lord from whom the Bible had originated. It was to be done at the Lord's commission rather than at the request of an earthly monarch or pope. This revision was to be an inspired version of the King James Bible, a divine restoration of ancient biblical knowledge. It is known today as the Inspired Version, or more properly, as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. It should be seen in perspective as another step in the struggle to give mankind a Bible that not only can be read but also can be understood. The Prophet Joseph Smith made his translation during the years 1830 to 1844.

[Hemidakota]

Part - 2

The LDS Edition of the Scriptures

In order to provide a Bible that would be the most helpful to members of the Church, the First Presidency in 1971 authorized a project to produce study aids for the King James Version. This effort bore fruit in 1979 with a Bible that consisted of:

The text of the King James Version.

Cross-references to latter-day scriptures—Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price.

Excerpts from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible.

Explanatory footnotes showing alternate readings from Greek and Hebrew.

Footnotes showing clarifications of obsolete words and idioms in the English language.

New interpretive chapter headings.

A topical guide.

A Bible dictionary.

A selection of maps.

Brought together in the LDS edition of the King James Bible is some of the best material available today from both secular scholarship and latter-day revelation. The genius of the LDS edition is to present this wealth of information about the Bible and latter-day revelation in a reference system that permits the reader to learn quickly what the scriptures say about a large number of subjects vital to eternal life.

In 1980 President Spencer W. Kimball invited us to become acquainted with the LDS edition of the Bible: "We now have a wonderful new edition of the King James Version of the Holy Bible with a topical index and a whole new reference system . . . all of which should encourage further involvement with the scriptures, as individuals and as families." 16

As the Lord promised centuries ago, his word has gone forth "unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people" (2 Ne. 29:2).Notes

1From Ensign, Jan. 1987, 22-27.

Notes

1. See F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Fleming H. Revel Co., 1995), 191-200; Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 141-43, 242-44.

2. In Mrs. Bayly, The Story of Our English Bible and What It Cost (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1886), 37-38.

3. Ibid.,58.

4. See Geddes MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1968), 80.

5. See Josiah H. Penniman, A Book about the English Bible (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1931), 341.

6. In MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible, 80.

7. See Bayly, The Story of Our English Bible, 61-62.

8. Ibid., 90.

9. In Harold L. Phillips, Translators and Translations (Anderson, Ind.: Warner Press, 1958), 22. Tyndale's original spelling has been modernized.

10. In Penniman, A Book about the English Bible, 348.

11. In MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible, 113-14.

12. Ibid., 118.

13. See MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible, 143-45; S. L. Greendale, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 156.

14. In Penniman, A Book about the English Bible, 394.

15. See Marion Sims, The Bible in America (New York: Wilson Erickson, 1936), 97.

16. "'We Feel an Urgency,'" Ensign, Aug. 1980, 3.

[japacific]

Yes they can. Never assume your speculation is the world's opinion.

Please explain...

[Hemidakota]

I've done some study on the subject. It sounds like there isn't any evidence that says he exists. My opinion is that he did exist but that he was just a man who started a movement. No one can really say anything for sure about that, but this is why I have formed that opinion.

That Jesus started a moment...that is your own forumated opinion and not tyhe worlds. "No one can really say anything for sure about that...". What we assume is not what others may feel or see for themselves.

[japacific]

Well the reason why I say that is because there is no evidence he existed. So if there is no way of proving he existed how does anyone living 2000 years later know he was there.

[Guest ceeboo]

Yes indeed,

I also don't believe that Abe Lincoln existed either!!!! After all, there is no one currently living that can say otherwise :):)

[Hemidakota]

He does! What most failed to realize, the Jews were notable historians. It can be proven He exists but they will not give Him the credit as the Savior. Now, that is a proven history.

As the Jim the Lawyer from the original references, he failed in his own attempt to discredit what is already a known fact that this man did exist among the Jews, whether it be second hand account or third; it really doesn't matter. As he failed, there were many additional scrolls that were rejected, including some of the Apostles, beside the four canonized versions, that were not added. What we were dealing with prior to the final version of the Bible, is was done by apostate clerics of the former church and pagans who sat in that council without the aid of a guiding prophet; let alone no Spirit of the Lord to attend to them in making wise choices among the scrolls to canonize.

Now, how do we prove that He lives for own personal testament? You should know that question.

[japacific]

Yes indeed,

I also don't believe that Abe Lincoln existed either!!!! After all, there is no one currently living that can say otherwise :):)

Yeah I know what your saying. But thats assuming the only way to prove someone ever existed is if they are still living and breathing and you can shake their hand today. Theres photos and ... well this is ridiculous. The difference between Abe Lincoln and Jesus is there is proof Mr Lincoln existed....And I'm not talking about feeling it in your heart and knowing without a doubt he existed.