Bible Corruptions?

[rameumptom]

So, are you actually claiming that Nephi was not written at the time the BOM claims it to have been written?

Nephi actually wrote his small plates about 20 years after arriving in the New World. Is it possible that he might have forgotten something, or arranged his later story in a slightly different way? Perhaps having pondered on his life for 20 years, he might have had different insights than he would have had writing it immediately?

Also, someone mentioned that Nephi wrote in a perfect language. Moroni wrote later that writing in Reformed Egyptian made their language imperfect. Clearly, there's a disconnect.

Don't forget that Mormon and Moroni abridged most of the BoM, so we get their spin on things. They had to interpret events that occurred centuries before them, when the customs, traditions, and even language were very different. We also do not see the things they left out.

Finally, anytime there is a translation: Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian, Reformed Egyptian to English, there are errors introduced. Sometimes it is a matter of languages not translating easily from one to the other. Other times it is a problem when culture changes things in translation. I could give examples in the BoM, but for brevity, I'll leave it at this.

[rameumptom]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

The bottom line is the scriptures are inspired, but not perfect. They contain the gospel of Christ, but are not always historically accurate. But we do not focus on the accuracy of the history, but on the accuracy of the spiritual content.

Let the Spirit guide you in understanding the scriptures. Do not worry about discussions, such as this one, because you will find a wide variance among human beings on just what to think of the scriptures. Let your spiritual experiences be the key guide for you.

God allows imperfections, because we are imperfect. And that's alright. This is why we have prophets. Those prophets do not focus on higher or lower textual criticism of the New Testament. They focus on the doctrines, principles, and ordinances of salvation that are found in the scriptures. In such ways, you will find the power and faith that binds most of us here as Latter-day Saints (or Christians, in the matter of some here)

[theoriginalavatar]

btw, satyrs are Greek mythical fantasy creatures. They don't exist.

Satyrs don't exist??!! Will you please explain my mother-in-law if that is the case?

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[ozzy]

So I had a thought. We all agree that there are changes to the Bible, even if we don't agree on the extent or affect of such things.

Would it be perhaps more accurate to say that the mistakes lie in the teachings/practices of modern man based on his/her understanding of the bible? For instance, there are many current theological disagreements on the meaning of various parts of the Bible (NT included). Even though the Bible does have its say, our understanding of 'it's say' can vary in any number of ways.

On a personal note, this makes me glad we have the other written and living scriptures to clarify.

Anyway, am I wrong in this?

[Vanhin]

Nephi actually wrote his small plates about 20 years after arriving in the New World. Is it possible that he might have forgotten something, or arranged his later story in a slightly different way? Perhaps having pondered on his life for 20 years, he might have had different insights than he would have had writing it immediately?

Also, someone mentioned that Nephi wrote in a perfect language. Moroni wrote later that writing in Reformed Egyptian made their language imperfect. Clearly, there's a disconnect.

Don't forget that Mormon and Moroni abridged most of the BoM, so we get their spin on things. They had to interpret events that occurred centuries before them, when the customs, traditions, and even language were very different. We also do not see the things they left out.

Finally, anytime there is a translation: Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian, Reformed Egyptian to English, there are errors introduced. Sometimes it is a matter of languages not translating easily from one to the other. Other times it is a problem when culture changes things in translation. I could give examples in the BoM, but for brevity, I'll leave it at this.

Just a couple of points. I believe that Nephi (from Lehi) is who originally developed the script that Moroni later calls "reformed Egyptian". Here is why. Nephi claims that he was writing the record "in the language of [his] father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." (1 Nephi 1:2) Further Moroni claims that that writing system was "handed down" to them and modified according to their "manner of speech" (Morm. 9:32).

Also the Small Plates of Nephi are not an abridgment. In other words from 1 Nephi to Omni the narratives are provided by the original authors. Each author speaks in the first person. From the Words of Mormon on, you have the abridgment of the Nephite records that were on the Large Plates of Nephi, and the Jaredite Book of Ether, and the narrative is provided by both Mormon and Moroni. There is a distinct difference from the Words of Mormon on with who is telling the story.

The last person to write in Omni was Amaleki, who started his words like this "Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom...". After that Mormon takes over, he begins to write an abridgment of what happened from there on, which he explains -

"Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin." (WoM 1:10)

You see what I am saying?

Regards,

Vanhin

[mnn727]

Would it be perhaps more accurate to say that the mistakes lie in the teachings/practices of modern man based on his/her understanding of the bible? ?

While I think that certainly adds to it I don't think thats 100% the case -- It has already been proven that scibes have made additions that have gone on to become part of scripture Johanine comma, last line of the Lords prayer --who is to say the the early generations of documents didn't have similar changes/additions/subtractions made.

[WillowTheWhisp]

If the last line of The Lord's Prayer is there in 3 Nephi is it remotely possible that it was there in the original NT and somehow lost then restored?

[volgadon]

Or Joseph Smith translated the Lord's prayer the way he was familiar with.

[mnn727]

If the last line of The Lord's Prayer is there in 3 Nephi is it remotely possible that it was there in the original NT and somehow lost then restored?

It could be or Joseph could have added it himself. I think some of what Joseph did while translating, he did so it would be familiar to the people reading it.

[ozzy]

While I think that certainly adds to it I don't think thats 100% the case -- It has already been proven that scibes have made additions that have gone on to become part of scripture Johanine comma, last line of the Lords prayer --who is to say the the early generations of documents didn't have similar changes/additions/subtractions made.

I agree with that. I do think that various changes to the actual text contribute as well as interpretation of the text itself. Honestly I was kinda trying to draw the conversation into a less provocative atmosphere by supplying a more common knowledge solution to why we all disagree on the Bible. Not that I don't believe what I say, but in a more... calm setting I may not have pointed this out.

To your last post, I suppose its possible though I prefer to think that God gave the translation that filled that criteria.

[Snow]

Its really too bad laughs are not enabled on this thread cause you'd have gotten a bunch for the above post. You ask me to prove something was changed knowing full well my claim is we can't possibly know what/if something was changed because at best we have 4th generation documents, yet you make a baseless claim that nothing was changed knowing for a fact there are no originals to compare to.

Absolutely false. I made no such claim. Don't up false arguments for me and then attack the made up fantasy.

I have specifically said a number times that changes, even hundreds of thousands of changes, have occurred.

[Snow]

Also- Is it safe for me to assume that you are Catholic, and is that why you seem so offended by my assertion that there is corruption in the Catholic church? I made no personal attack against you or followers of the Catholic religion. Do I have an issue with the LEADERSHIP of the Catholic church? Yes. One of the reasons I am not Catholic. I have nothing against people who are Catholic though. And the only reason I have specified the Catholic church as a source of corruptions in the Bible is because they were the main church, the religious authority, from which other Christian churches branched.

A general broad-picture study of history shows that people given power become corrupted. Not everyone does. There are good rulers who use their power properly, but there are many who fall and become wicked. Just look at the repetitiveness of the pride cycle in the Book of Mormon. This is why, though I do not know which leader, when or what changes- I believe that there is corruption in the Bible. Leaders of the Catholic church are in a position of power. In the early days of its formation, they did not allow the masses to view the Bible for themselves. This is a clear sign of corruption.

Also, just because I cannot provide specifics to back up my claim does not make it a moot point. It does not mean I am making it up. See the ozzy quote again. It seems to me that you are only willing to consider those who do provide documentation in this thread, and so after this post I will gracefully step out. I am not the type of person that provides specifics, simply because I don't hunt down my sources or record where I got every little bit of information that is logged away in my head. If I were writing a book that had to be properly cited I would do so, but that is not the case.

The specifics of my personal study and revelation would take a lifetime to post, because it has occured over just that- a lifetime. But I have studied. I have read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and Bible several times over. I have studied the history of the LDS church and World Religions to include far more than Christianity. I have studied many scientific disciplines. I have learned from many library books, interaction with people of various religious orientations, and most importantly from building my own spiritual relationship with the Lord through prayer, obedience to His laws ordinances and principles, and application of my studies to my life and spirituality. I am a learned individual, but I am no scholar.

Since you are limiting your discussion to scholars, these are my final words in this thread: I do not follow blindly. I do not assume I can trust the words of my leaders without proof, and I would appreciate it if my opinions would be given some credit and not thrown out the window because I do not meet up to your criteria of a fellow debator- but then, I thought this was a discussion board, not a debate board. And you have yet to answer my question- Why put your trust in the words of men, when you can easily come to a knowledge of the truth for yourself by relying on the Lord?

No it is not safe to assume and yes, you are making up stuff about Catholic leadership making changes to the Bible - a point you ably demonstrate by not being able to support your false charges.

Perhaps you can attack the Baptists or Presbyterians next. Have you considered the Methodists?

[WillowTheWhisp]

No it is not safe to assume and yes, you are making up stuff about Catholic leadership making changes to the Bible - a point you ably demonstrate by not being able to support your false charges.

Perhaps you can attack the Baptists or Presbyterians next. Have you considered the Methodists?

But there only WAS the Catholic church at the time so who else was responsible for the Bible then?

[Yekcidmij]

But there only WAS the Catholic church at the time so who else was responsible for the Bible then?

Depends on what you mean by "Catholic" and what time period we are talking about.

[ozzy]

So I know it isn't specific, but does anyone have thoughts on 1 Nephi chapter 13 verses 28-29? I think these may at least explain why many do believe that pertinent things have been removed from the Bible.

[volgadon]

But there only WAS the Catholic church at the time so who else was responsible for the Bible then?

Not strictly true.

[Moksha]

Yet still do a crap job for the most part.

Is this insistence, that other translations do a crap job, due to the Book of Mormon being based on the KJV?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Not strictly true.

Could you please elaborate? I have always been under the impression that in the beginning there was just the Catholic church and that all others came from it.

[ozzy]

Could you please elaborate? I have always been under the impression that in the beginning there was just the Catholic church and that all others came from it.

Hmmm, even so, at the very least there have always been factions even within the Catholic church. And for the context of this thread, we should also consider which generation of the Catholic church did the corrupting.

And if we really really wanted to, we could also take into account all of the non-christian sects, but I don't think any of them really did much with the NT.

[volgadon]

Is this insistence, that other translations do a crap job, due to the Book of Mormon being based on the KJV?

No, its because I read Hebrew.

[ruthiechan]

Could you please elaborate? I have always been under the impression that in the beginning there was just the Catholic church and that all others came from it.

Which beginning are you referring to?

[Snow]

But there only WAS the Catholic church at the time so who else was responsible for the Bible then?

The text of the Bible was written before there was a Catholic Church, despite the inaccurate claims that the Catholic Church traces back to Peter. Those claims are based on a later created tradition, not actual history. The canon came about unsystematically, from a grassroots level quite separate from formal ecclesiastical intervention from Catholic hierarchy. But, the poster claims that Catholic leadership had deliberately corrupted the text - that is a false and made up claim with no basis in fact.

True enough that independent monks/scribes made alterations or changes to the text deliberately on copied manuscripts in order to make the text less susceptible to non-orthodox interpretation but that is quite a different matter than saying, untruthfully, that Church leadership corrupted the Bible.

[Snow]

Could you please elaborate? I have always been under the impression that in the beginning there was just the Catholic church and that all others came from it.

In the first decades after the death of Jesus, there evolved a the 'Jesus Movement' of disciples and devotee. It was not a Christian church but rather a group of Jesus followers within the Jewish faith. Eventually that evolved into a "Christian" movement comprised of Jews and non-Jews towards the end of the first century and the beginning of the 2nd century. It still took much time after that for that Christian movement to eventually become the Catholic or "universal" Church, passing through various phases and factions that progressed to a proto-orthodox tradition and then ultimately to an organized, mono-episcopal, church - The Catholic Church.

[ozzy]

The text of the Bible was written before there was a Catholic Church, despite the inaccurate claims that the Catholic Church traces back to Peter. Those claims are based on a later created tradition, not actual history. The canon came about unsystematically, from a grassroots level quite separate from formal ecclesiastical intervention from Catholic hierarchy. But, the poster claims that Catholic leadership had deliberately corrupted the text - that is a false and made up claim with no basis in fact.

True enough that independent monks/scribes made alterations or changes to the text deliberately on copied manuscripts in order to make the text less susceptible to non-orthodox interpretation but that is quite a different matter than saying, untruthfully, that Church leadership corrupted the Bible.

I think the reason that the Catholic church has become a target of such accusation is because it seems to be the most able body to fulfill the prophecy in 1 Nephi (I think the exact verses are in my last post). I suppose it is presumptuous to assume that it was specifically them. But it doesn't help matters when such as Bruce R. McKonkie (who is one of my favorites) publishes books like Mormon Doctrine. This being because his first addition identifies the Catholic church as being the whore of the earth spoken of in revelation. The problem is that this book is not doctrine even though some people believe it is.

Again, maybe it is presumptuous to say that the Catholic church is the source of malicious changes. However, I don't think it is reasonable to say that no such changes occured when prophecy claims they did (will). To my knowledge, there is no scholarly or (more importantly) doctrinal rebuff for that prophecy.

Also, I can't source specific instances, and I admit that. However previous of my posts have included sources and my logic behind the principle that such doctrinally altering changes took place.

I specify doctrinally altering because were it not so, then it wouldn't be important enough to consider in the first place by such as the Book of Mormon, or even us here.

[ozzy]

Oh, and if it helps, my first post was #70. Future posts on the issue follow in a number of locations. They follow my thoughts. And again, I do agree with you Snow, we can't source our claims to specific instances. The only part I disagree with is that significant changes that affect our understanding didn't happen. At least, that is what I understand your claim to be. Please correct me if I am wrong.