Bible Corruptions?

[volgadon]

No - you're point is that it is all just a big ole mystery but what you can't recognize that the only way it is a mystery is if one assumes that that somehow between the time of the original autograph manuscripts and the 3rd or 4th generation of manuscripts, someone secretly gathered up all the originals and all the accurate copies of the originals and destroyed them before they could be copied again and then either erased the memory of those that had read them or got them all to agree to participate in a massive fraud against scripture. If one doesn't assume some such nonsense then it is no mystery.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. You are becoming increasingly tedious.

Enjoy huffing and puffing at your strawman.

[Snow]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. You are becoming increasingly tedious.

Enjoy huffing and puffing at your strawman.

Let's put it this way then. You have no point which is kinda nice since it matches your evidence and parallels your reasoning.

[rameumptom]

Once again, I'm going to remind everyone to keep this civil, or I'm closing the thread. Last warning.

[volgadon]

Snow, you must enjoy winning your battles by setting up strawmen, tearing them down and misrepresenting others, not to mention presenting quotes out of context. My how you crow over every 'victory'. Can't really see you winning any toher way.

As I said, you are the one making exceedingly vague statements. Either provide a concrete example of somebody claiming that there were changes, so we can have something to discuss other than hypotheticals, or stop claiming that I appeal to mystery.

[Snow]

Snow, you must enjoy winning your battles by setting up strawmen, tearing them down and misrepresenting others, not to mention presenting quotes out of context. My how you crow over every 'victory'. Can't really see you winning any toher way.

As I said, you are the one making exceedingly vague statements. Either provide a concrete example of somebody claiming that there were changes, so we can have something to discuss other than hypotheticals, or stop claiming that I appeal to mystery.

Then why don't you just explain your point.

... I don't understand you request in the 2nd paragraph.

[volgadon]

Provide an example of someone claiming changes to the text, so we can see what text is in question and take it from there.

[Maureen]

If anyone is interested here is an interview with Daniel Wallace, regarding textual criticism.

Evangelical Textual Criticism: Interview with Dan Wallace

[ozzy]

Provide an example of someone claiming changes to the text, so we can see what text is in question and take it from there.

You do have a point. I don't think we have actually discussed any concerns with specific textual changes yet in this thread. I would be interested to see some myself. Thats not to say I don't think they exist, I just can't remember what subjects they relate to.

[ozzy]

Which leads me to be on my knees asking that we not actually close the thread yet.

[Snow]

Provide an example of someone claiming changes to the text, so we can see what text is in question and take it from there.

The point I made, and now make again is that in discussions/debates here on various and sundry topics, some posters will try and rebut someone's argument by saying: "and besides, we don't know what changes or corruptions have occurred to the original scripture." The point is that they are not alleging that a specific passage has been lost or altered, but rather that some unknown and mysterious alteration may conceivably have been made, as if that somehow 1) has merit, and 2) might possibly support their argument over someone else's if the mysterious original text were available. If someone could point out what specific textual corruption was at issue, then this thread wouldn't have been started.

Re my request for your to explain your position... shall I interpret your silence as your refusal to explain - that you'd rather just call out strawman instead of actually telling us what you think?

[ozzy]

Hey Snow, I was wondering if you knew of a specific thread that we could look at as an example of your claim. And actually, I am personally interested in this particular subject since I do believe it is important to source claims such as changes to scripture. So even if it is one where I am the culprit, would you happen to have a couple in mind we could look at?

[Snow]

Hey Snow, I was wondering if you knew of a specific thread that we could look at as an example of your claim. And actually, I am personally interested in this particular subject since I do believe it is important to source claims such as changes to scripture. So even if it is one where I am the culprit, would you happen to have a couple in mind we could look at?

I know that a couple of threads over the past 2-3 weeks brought the issue to mind but, no, I don't have a specific post in mind. From what I can tell we no longer have a search feature so I haven't tried to look up an example. My intent wasn't to beat up anyone in particular for having done it, but rather just discuss the issue. Judging by some of the responses on this thread, it seems as if some posters do believe that there is enough uncertainty in what the original texts might have said that they identify with the notion.

edit: I did just recall one recent minor example. In the Matthew Mark Fig Three thread Hemidakota implied the issue at hand when he said: "How many times different writers while writing at a sermon given by Joseph Smith have altered accounts of what was told?" No offense to Hemi, please. It's not an ideal example because he was impling that the original authors of Mark or Matthew incorrectly recorded the event rather than a copyists incorrectly transmitting the text but it's the same type[/] if thing, although I am in agreement with Hemi's implication that the original authors or one of them at least took liberties with the real story.. (post #28 http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/29113-matthew-corrects-mark-figs-anyone-3.html )

Edited January 16, 2010 by Snow

[ozzy]

I agree and have seen them myself (probably wrote one or two :) ), I just can't even remember the topic. For the fig tree scenario, I can definitely agree with the liberties possibly taken, or small mistakes made in recollection or perception.

I will definitely keep this thread in mind when I read or write claims which imply apocalyptic corruptions of the Bible. I have rather enjoyed this thread and it has definitely been some good food for thought.

Thanks Snow and others

[Justice]

I know I bring up possibilities with no evidence. My point in doing so is not to shut the door on the matter, but to bring up other possible ways events may have happened that show it can be possible there is less discrepency that we sometimes think. Maybe the words just aren't understood correctly by the majority.

Why is it so wrong to look at the glass half full as opposed to half empty? Afterall, we're talking about the scriptures, aren't we? If we can't believe the majority of what's in the scriptures what can we believe?

When you're forced to look beyond the written text for answers, as is often the case in the Bible, leaning toward faith as opposed to science does not always lead to an incorrect answer. If that person, story, or event is mentioned elsewhere in scripture, it should be admissable as evidence.

Example: the Liahona. We don't have the Liahona. We have nothing in the way of evidence that shows it was possible that they could construct devices like this in their day. We have no evidence anywhere outside the Book of Mormon that God used "technology" such as this to guide His people. It's "convenient" that Joseph Smith said he saw it but that it was taken, leaving no evidence.

There are many different conclusions one could reach. However, if one uses the fact that other Book of Mormon writers mention it and support the story, then you at least have some evidence that it was a real device. If you do not, then you reamin evidence-less. What is wrong with the position that it must have been made of divine origin and it must have worked exactly as described, even with the lack of external evidence?

It requires faith in order to believe the Liahona existed. There is no real evidence. So, asking for people to come up with evidence, when the only evidence is written in scripture, makes for a very difficult and frustrating discussion. Especially, when the very scripture that states its existence and use is not considered evidence. It is often asked, "where is the evidence it did not exist?" Using this tactic gets thrown in the face of the asker as not leaning on science and evidence enough.

Of course this is just an example, but I think all will find these types of claims and behavior in many of the discussions we have.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Justice

[Traveler]

I doubt that anyone of us will disagree that the Bible is deficient if by that you mean lacking in clarity and completeness to fully elucidate the key principles of the gospel in the way that we now understand them, today. But, that deficiency, at least in the case of the NT, is not a function of transmission, but rather is a function of original authoring and selection (canonization).

I think I may disagree with you on this point Snow. If we are to measure value based on strict textual criticism I believe we can demonstrate paradigm shifts both in slight editorial license of text and variant reading of ancient text being demonstrated in translated versions in both modern and ancient settings.

History has turned in on itself and demonstrated that the canon process utilized by historical Christianity of ancient scriptural value as appointed was applied falsely or in other words the reasons documented for inclusion and exclusion has been demonstrated to be wrong. I give as example in the documented exclusion the Hebrew text of the “Testament of the Patriarchs” and the “Book of Enoch”.

I believe the only way to determine if scripture has been interpreted correctly is as Jesus said we should evaluate such things – By their fruits. The example Jesus asks to demonstrate his point was “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?” I would submit that to the person that does not comprehend how this applies to scripture use in society – they cannot correctly use the scriptures for themselves and any argument with such individuals over scriptural authenticity and accuracy is “fruitless”.

The Traveler

[Saturnfulcrum]

If the Bible was perfect in every way and form, it would be translated.

That would not be good for us would it?

[WillowTheWhisp]

If the Bible was perfect in every way and form, it would be translated.

I wish there was a laugh button. Nice one Saturnfulcrum

[Traveler]

The value of scripture is not what is written on paper or tablets and translated into books to carry to church and quote at social functions but what is written in one's heart and translated into their common ordinary everyday actions.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

Traveler,

While I agree to a point, I also think that it is very important to have the actual writings. Nephi slew Laban for a physical set of scriptures. Why? Because without them, there would be no righteous Nephite nation. People carry these things in their heart, but ONLY because of the written word.

We are encouraged continuously by our Church leaders to read and re-read the scriptures. Why do this, if they are already written on our hearts, and shown in our daily walk? It's because what has been written on the heart can be erased over time and forgotten. It must be continually rewritten on the heart, otherwise people fall away due to forgetting. Pres Kimball mentioned regaining a testimony every day, not just once.

Often what we find engraved on the people's hearts is just a faint etching of a few words of scripture. These words, by themselves, are good, but can often be taken out of context - leading to eventual apostasy. For example, Pres Packer warned years ago about using the virtue of freedom to beat up on other virtues. That only occurs when there is not a complete record written upon the heart.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

While I agree to a point, I also think that it is very important to have the actual writings. Nephi slew Laban for a physical set of scriptures. Why? Because without them, there would be no righteous Nephite nation. People carry these things in their heart, but ONLY because of the written word.

We are encouraged continuously by our Church leaders to read and re-read the scriptures. Why do this, if they are already written on our hearts, and shown in our daily walk? It's because what has been written on the heart can be erased over time and forgotten. It must be continually rewritten on the heart, otherwise people fall away due to forgetting. Pres Kimball mentioned regaining a testimony every day, not just once.

Often what we find engraved on the people's hearts is just a faint etching of a few words of scripture. These words, by themselves, are good, but can often be taken out of context - leading to eventual apostasy. For example, Pres Packer warned years ago about using the virtue of freedom to beat up on other virtues. That only occurs when there is not a complete record written upon the heart.

Very good post. Perhaps we should pursue some of these ideas. It is my opinion that scriptures are part of our enlightenment and should not be our only source of enlightenment. If scripture is all that is available; religion will fall into apostasy. Also I believe if you read why the L-rd wanted Lehi to have the brass plates it was to preserve what was written for future generations - not so much for Lehi and Nephi.

The Traveler