Bible Corruptions?

[Snow]

The point is, however, that through textual criticism and analysis, we understand what the original manuscripts said in a great majority of the New Testament and with a high degree of accuracy. Scholars are able to identify the changes and get past them, back to an un or relatively un-corrupted original text. THEREFORE, it just won't do for someone in an argument to try and bolster their case by claiming some vague mysterious corruption of the scriptures. If you can't point to the part that was supposedly changed, you are making a bogus argument. For example, someone is arguing a doctrinal point of some sort. They can't prove their point from the Bible so they allege Bible mysterious corruption, implying that the original text would support their position.

... and by the way, none of the known corruptions of the NT, when corrected, does anything significant to support LDS doctrine.

Well, once again I would note that there is a problem when the discussion comes down to which books should be in/out of the NT. And the OT, for that matter. The New Testament quotes the Book of Enoch 39 times, yet St Jerome rejected it due to its stark ascension story (which supports LDS views). Shepherd of Hermas also discussed levels of heaven/resurrection, and other LDS views.

Of course the Johannine Comma supported Trinitarian views, and so to remove it DOES support LDS Doctrine, even if indirectly.

Edited January 14, 2010 by rameumptom

[ozzy]

You are still misunderstanding. All sorts of changes have happened. There's the fraudulent Johannine Comma (inserted to support the concept of the Trinity), there is the addition of the story of the woman taken in adultery, there is the last 12 verses or so of Mark that were added later and many more changes, both deliberate and inadvertent.

The point is, however, that through textual criticism and analysis, we understand what the original manuscripts said in a great majority of the New Testament and with a high degree of accuracy. Scholars are able to identify the changes and get past them, back to an un or relatively un-corrupted original text. THEREFORE, it just won't do for someone in an argument to try and bolster their case by claiming some vague mysterious corruption of the scriptures. If you can't point to the part that was supposedly changed, you are making a bogus argument. For example, someone is arguing a doctrinal point of some sort. They can't prove their point from the Bible so they allege Bible mysterious corruption, implying that the original text would support their position.

... and by the way, none of the known corruptions of the NT, when corrected, does anything significant to support LDS doctrine.

Okay, I think I understand what you mean now.

I do agree that for the most part random sourceless claims are antibeneficial and dangerous. My thoughts though are that if it doesn't support current doctrine (which from my personal studies it usually does, then they taught different doctrine back then which negates the idea of a restoration. (some would say that doctrine changes even today. This is not true. Practice changes, but doctrine is constant. At the most, it is added on to bring into account modern needs) That bothers me, and yes, is the reason that I would make such a claim.

For the most part, those doctrines that are not outright supported are at least alluded to as truth. An example would be the baptism doctrine. The description of Christs baptism (however vague) does imply immersion. The other practices for baptism have no biblical founding or scriptural support but do have historical support in the individual religions practices. I would say then that more so than textual corruption are examples of practical corruption.

On the other hand though, while scholars are pretty smart and usually know what they are talking about, they aren't always right. Science is one area where we see this a lot. It's theories change constantly based on new discoveries and such. I'd bet that scholars still disagree on much of the interpretations, original meanings, textual changes and so forth of the Bible, which sort of negates the 99% (or any quantified claim for that matter) principle.

History is like forensics. Sometimes there are missing pieces and so we turn to rational and logic to solve the mystery. Sadly, or rational and logic are neither perfect nor incorruptible. Even if they are scholars, and even if they do know more than me, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that they know as much as they think they do. But I can't disprove them, so I won't even try.

I would be interested though to see a republished Bible with the assumed corrections for myself.

[Yekcidmij]

I would be interested though to see a republished Bible with the assumed corrections for myself.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), or Biblia Hebraica Quinta [bHQ] which is in process, and Nestle-Aland 27 ed. (NA27) are the best critical versions to date. BHS/Q = Old Test. NA27=New Test.

[ozzy]

Thanks Jimmie. As a side note, would you happen to know how they compare to each other?

[volgadon]

The point is, however, that through textual criticism and analysis, we understand what the original manuscripts said in a great majority of the New Testament and with a high degree of accuracy. Scholars are able to identify the changes and get past them, back to an un or relatively un-corrupted original text. THEREFORE, it just won't do for someone in an argument to try and bolster their case by claiming some vague mysterious corruption of the scriptures. If you can't point to the part that was supposedly changed, you are making a bogus argument. For example, someone is arguing a doctrinal point of some sort. They can't prove their point from the Bible so they allege Bible mysterious corruption, implying that the original text would support their position.

You are making vague, mysterious claims yourself.

[Yekcidmij]

Thanks Jimmie. As a side note, would you happen to know how they compare to each other?

BHS/BHQ are the critical versions of the Hebrew Old Testament.

NA27 is the critical verion of the Greek NT.

Most of your modern English bibles (NASB, NIV, ESV, etc..) are based off of those.

Edited January 14, 2010 by JimmieD1

[mnn727]

You are making vague, mysterious claims yourself.

and apparently can not even conceive that he is doing the exact same thing

[rameumptom]

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.

I think that is the point: REMOVED is different than changes. We can agree that many inspired things were removed from the Bible - including the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the NT), and other books.

The issue of corruption is another thing, as we cannot always be sure what has/hasn't been corrupted. Nor can we be sure that even if something isn't corrupted, whether it is inspired or not. Today's scholars have a good grip on what happened to the New Testament, at least in its current version.

[rameumptom]

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.

I would also note that there were many early Christian factions. Some were very pro-Judaism. Some completely rejected the Old Testament, because it represented a fallen/apostate religion. Then others were in between, accepting the writings, but leaving Judaism behind.

Many of these, what we would now call "Gnostic groups", actually competed strongly for centuries with the proto-orthodoxy of the day. It took lots of apologetic (defense of the faith) writing to portray the competition as apostates.

Even among the proto-orthodoxy, one man's apologist would someday be another's apostate. Origen was one of the proto-orthodox Church's main defenders in his day. However, two centuries later, St Augustine would consider him a heretic for his teachings on the Godhead. Because Origen's teachings reflected the early belief in Father and Son as separate beings, St Augustine had no choice but to reject all his writings as heretic because it didn't support the later belief in the Trinity.

[rameumptom]

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 (sic) (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.

While I also love Elder McConkie (note the spelling of the name. If he REALLY was one of your favorites, wouldn't you get the name right?), I realize his older works leave much to be desired.

When he wrote Mormon Doctrine, he was not an apostle. The first edition did not go through correlation, and caused a huge stir among the Brethren. Pres McKay had it stopped after the first printing for several years because of the more than 1000 errors that Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Marion G. Romney found in it. It greatly concerned them that it would be titled "Mormon Doctrine" when most of it was NOT doctrine at all. Since it was written in such an authoritative voice, it took on a life of its own, filling a void that was in the Church's publications at the time. Alas, it was filled with errors.

The second printing was allowed, only after Elder McConkie agreed to make over a thousand changes in it. It still was a big concern for the Brethren, however. They tried to replace it in the early 1990s with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

That one book caused the Church to react strongly against GAs writing books without first going through correlation. And it led to the Church's correlation program today. You will note that PH/RS Gospel Principle's manual has replaced the Elder McConkie quotes with quotes from the PH/RS Prophets Manuals of the last decade. It is one more step away from old teachings that have since been greatly replaced.

Elder McConkie was plain wrong to accuse the Catholic Church of being the Great and Abominable Church. It isn't. And the Brethren back 50 years ago made that clear when they privately excoriated him for the book he produced. The Great and Abominable Church is a telestial/wicked Church/organization that teaches people to focus on riches, pride, and evil. The Catholic Church, at least over the last many years, has been just the opposite of that. Their faithful followers will definitely be blessed in the Terrestrial Kingdom of God, which is made up of the honorable men of the earth, and not of evil people.

[rameumptom]

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), or Biblia Hebraica Quinta [bHQ] which is in process, and Nestle-Aland 27 ed. (NA27) are the best critical versions to date. BHS/Q = Old Test. NA27=New Test.

While the BHS is one of the best, several Jewish/Christian scholars prefer the Aleppo translation of the OT.

One problem with the BHS is that while they are getting good translations made from the Leningrad Codex, the book is still 1000 years after Christ, and possibly based upon many other translations before.

Translations that are supplemented/enhanced by the writings in the DSS are now coming out that will make these even better. Still, who is to say what "accurate" means on writings that are still so far from the originals?

[ozzy]

BHS/BHQ are the critical versions of the Hebrew Old Testament.

NA27 is the critical verion of the Greek NT.

Most of your modern English bibles (NASB, NIV, ESV, etc..) are based off of those.

Gotcha. I'll check them out some time. Thanks. :)

[Yekcidmij]

While the BHS is one of the best, several Jewish/Christian scholars prefer the Aleppo translation of the OT.

One problem with the BHS is that while they are getting good translations made from the Leningrad Codex, the book is still 1000 years after Christ, and possibly based upon many other translations before.

Translations that are supplemented/enhanced by the writings in the DSS are now coming out that will make these even better. Still, who is to say what "accurate" means on writings that are still so far from the originals?

BHS has a great critical apparatus. It's not as if it has just copied Leningrad and nothing else. There is hardly a critical apparatus that is as good and it's the one most widely used by scholars. I don't have a problem with someone using Aleppo though.

[ozzy]

I think that is the point: REMOVED is different than changes. We can agree that many inspired things were removed from the Bible - including the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the NT), and other books.

The issue of corruption is another thing, as we cannot always be sure what has/hasn't been corrupted. Nor can we be sure that even if something isn't corrupted, whether it is inspired or not. Today's scholars have a good grip on what happened to the New Testament, at least in its current version.

I see where you are coming from. I suppose when I personally consider it, I just sort of lump 'removed' with corruption. Though I suppose that in the interests of this thread, that isn't practical.

[Yekcidmij]

We can agree that many inspired things were removed from the Bible - including the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the NT), and other books.

I wasn't aware of 39 quotes of Enoch in the NT. I'm aware of a couple of verses in Jude and 1 Peter, but 39 is unsually large. And simply quoting Enoch doesn't mean it was considered 'canonical'. Paul quotes Aratus and Epimenides, but I hardly think Paul is saying that either is a canonical work.

Edited January 14, 2010 by JimmieD1

[ozzy]

While I also love Elder McConkie (note the spelling of the name. If he REALLY was one of your favorites, wouldn't you get the name right?), I realize his older works leave much to be desired.

When he wrote Mormon Doctrine, he was not an apostle. The first edition did not go through correlation, and caused a huge stir among the Brethren. Pres McKay had it stopped after the first printing for several years because of the more than 1000 errors that Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Marion G. Romney found in it. It greatly concerned them that it would be titled "Mormon Doctrine" when most of it was NOT doctrine at all. Since it was written in such an authoritative voice, it took on a life of its own, filling a void that was in the Church's publications at the time. Alas, it was filled with errors.

The second printing was allowed, only after Elder McConkie agreed to make over a thousand changes in it. It still was a big concern for the Brethren, however. They tried to replace it in the early 1990s with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

That one book caused the Church to react strongly against GAs writing books without first going through correlation. And it led to the Church's correlation program today. You will note that PH/RS Gospel Principle's manual has replaced the Elder McConkie quotes with quotes from the PH/RS Prophets Manuals of the last decade. It is one more step away from old teachings that have since been greatly replaced.

Elder McConkie was plain wrong to accuse the Catholic Church of being the Great and Abominable Church. It isn't. And the Brethren back 50 years ago made that clear when they privately excoriated him for the book he produced. The Great and Abominable Church is a telestial/wicked Church/organization that teaches people to focus on riches, pride, and evil. The Catholic Church, at least over the last many years, has been just the opposite of that. Their faithful followers will definitely be blessed in the Terrestrial Kingdom of God, which is made up of the honorable men of the earth, and not of evil people.

Thanks for the history. That actually cleared up some misconceptions I had about it. I didn't realize he wasn't an apostle when he did his first edition.

Sorry about the spelling. I wondered which was which but decided to just go with K. He is one of my favorites, I just don't think much about the spelling.

In any case I prefer J Golden Kimball. He is awesome. :)

[rameumptom]

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.

Regards,

Vanhin

Actually, the Small Plates ARE an abridgement. They are Nephi's (and his descendants') abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi. Nephi wrote his portion 20 years after leaving the Old World, and used the large plates to express only the spiritual events he felt were necessary. Do you think he would have remembered 20 years later that the family turned east in their travels? Highly unlikely, unless he was using info from the large plates.

The Reformed Egyptian seems to have been something that Lehi taught Nephi, and perhaps is the same language used on the Brass Plates of Laban.

[rameumptom]

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

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I think he meant that SATIRES don't exist. It is a melancholy world we live in, after all....

[Moksha]

No, its because I read Hebrew.

I think my correct response should be, "That's Greek to me". Guess the other translators missed the part about Hebrew. Hope that doesn't affect the ending.

[Snow]

and apparently can not even conceive that he is doing the exact same thing

You and vol just don't or can't get it. You equate your lack of education about textual criticism with appeals to mystery. I'd explain it to you but it would obviously be a lost cause.

Now - what I'd like to see from either of you two and this is a rhetorical challenge because we know that you won't be able to do it, is support your implied theory that would rendered the understanding of textual criticism wrong, namely 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.

But of course, as I said, we all know that you can't and won't. Your entire argument is based on vapor.

[Snow]

I would also note that there were many early Christian factions. Some were very pro-Judaism. Some completely rejected the Old Testament, because it represented a fallen/apostate religion. Then others were in between, accepting the writings, but leaving Judaism behind.

Many of these, what we would now call "Gnostic groups", actually competed strongly for centuries with the proto-orthodoxy of the day. It took lots of apologetic (defense of the faith) writing to portray the competition as apostates.

Even among the proto-orthodoxy, one man's apologist would someday be another's apostate. Origen was one of the proto-orthodox Church's main defenders in his day. However, two centuries later, St Augustine would consider him a heretic for his teachings on the Godhead. Because Origen's teachings reflected the early belief in Father and Son as separate beings, St Augustine had no choice but to reject all his writings as heretic because it didn't support the later belief in the Trinity.

Yes - great point. The proto orthodox movement and then what eventually became the orthodox movement in the 4th and 5th century were simply the ones that one. There were many other competing movements. Prior to 325 AD, the heretics (subordinationists) were the "orthodox" ones.

[Justice]

Actually, the Small Plates ARE an abridgement. They are Nephi's (and his descendants') abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi.

No, the Small Plates of Nephi were never abridged. The best argument you can come up with is that Mormon copied them so he could bury the originals with the rest of the Large Plates of Nephi originals to preserve them. But, that's purely speculation (good, sound logical speculation which I agree with).

I don't think he would have risked the only copy of the Small Plates to go with Moroni. Mormon felt the weight of the copmmand the Lord gave him to protect and preserve all the writings that were passed down to him. The abridgement of the Large Plates he made was not passed down to him, so it was not an original and would cause no harm if they fell into the hands of the Lamanites.

Nephi wrote his portion 20 years after leaving the Old World, and used the large plates to express only the spiritual events he felt were necessary.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean the Large Plates were used for a political history, and only touched lightly on their spiritual experiences (up until Mosiah, anyway), then I agree.

Do you think he would have remembered 20 years later that the family turned east in their travels? Highly unlikely, unless he was using info from the large plates.

Well, remember that Mormon's abridgement of the Book of Lehi from the Large Plates of Nephi was lost. All we have left of Lehi's writings are what Nephi chose to include in his book in the Small Plates. All those details he needed to know when he wrote in the Small Plates (like when they turned east) could be found in Lehi's writings, which Nephi apparently compiled into a book in the Large Plates. Joseph Smith made many references to the Book of Lehi.

Be glad to show you scripture references. This is a particular interest of mine.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Justice

[volgadon]

You and vol just don't or can't get it. You equate your lack of education about textual criticism with appeals to mystery. I'd explain it to you but it would obviously be a lost cause.

Now - what I'd like to see from either of you two and this is a rhetorical challenge because we know that you won't be able to do it, is support your implied theory that would rendered the understanding of textual criticism wrong, namely 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.

But of course, as I said, we all know that you can't and won't. Your entire argument is based on vapor.

Of course I won't, because that is not my point at all.

[volgadon]

While the BHS is one of the best, several Jewish/Christian scholars prefer the Aleppo translation of the OT.

One problem with the BHS is that while they are getting good translations made from the Leningrad Codex, the book is still 1000 years after Christ, and possibly based upon many other translations before.

Translations that are supplemented/enhanced by the writings in the DSS are now coming out that will make these even better. Still, who is to say what "accurate" means on writings that are still so far from the originals?

The Aleppo IS the very finest of the maosretic school, but, sadly, a lot was destroyed in 1948. The advantage of the Leningrad is that it is intact.

Both, BTW, were written in the town next to my home.

[Snow]

Of course I won't, because that is not my point at all.

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.