As far as it is translated correctly

[Spartan117]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says this about the Bible ...

A collection of Hebrew and Christian writings that contains divine revelations. The word bible means “the books.” The Bible is the work of many prophets and inspired writers acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit ...

... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveres and respects the Bible and affirms also that the Lord continues to give additional revelation through his prophets in the last days that supports and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind.

Official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says this about the Bible ...

Articles of Faith 1:8

8: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:12

12: And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

Modern day apostle James E. Talmage says this about the Bible ...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine ...

... There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. The translator must have the spirit of the prophet if he would render in another tongue the prophet's words; and human wisdom alone leads not to that possession. Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men. (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.13, p.236 - p.237)

Here is the problem ...

The Old Testament was authored in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. While the original autographs no longer exist, translations are made from ancient manuscript copies, of which there are today at least 24,000, whole or in-part, with which to compare. (Josh McDowell, Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48)

John Mill...

estimated the number of variations in the New Testament text at 30,000.

So what does that lead to?

John 7:53-John 8:1-11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."

Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.

1 John 5:7-8 — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous Comma Johanneum, is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.

Matthew 5:22 The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.)

John 1:18 is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either monogenes theos ("the only God") or ho monogenes huios ("the only son").

Hebrews 1:3 reads "reveals (phaneron) all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (pheron) all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the CV that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.

My hope in all this is that a few points will be made clear:

1: The Bible is scripture in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2: The Bible is respected by Mormons

3: "As far as it is translated correctly" is not unreasonable

There have been lots of threads lately about competing ideas between faiths, Prison Chaplin has been an amazing teacher in the ways of non-LDS doctrine. This has lead to several threads about specific teachings (mainly the Trinity) and very intense debate. I just want the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regard to the Bible to be communicated and represented correctly.

[prisonchaplain]

3: "As far as it is translated correctly" is not unreasonable.

On the surface the proviso is reasonable, educated, even objective. However, I am not objective. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that it was the most reliable witness of God's will to the church for many hundreds of years.

I know that there is the potential for discrepancies, since we do not know which manuscripts are original, and that it is very likely that those are lost. As a matter of faith, I believe that God preserves his Word, that he did indeed guide and does guide translation efforts.

So, how might I recognize the reality, while affirming faith? I might grant the point in interfaith dialogues. I might footnote in scholarly texts. What I would not do is make the proviso a front and center statement in the midst of my church's primary statement of faith (i.e. the Articles of Faith). I especially would not give the proviso such prominence if my church considered our Articles of Faith to be inspired scriptures themselves. I would feel no obligation to highlight, spotlight, underline and boldface a perceived difficulty.

When I mentioned this in another string, and suggested that the implication was that the BoM, D&C, and PoGP would all be categorized as superior to and more authoritative than the Bible. I believe someone agreed, saying my suspicion was justified.

[Justice]

I'm not concerned about "mistakes" or "discrepencies" that resulted from accidental error, or even people who attempted, with best intentions, to restore text to a more original state. What I'm concerned about are the times when the Bible was deliberatly changed, or parts were deliberately removed or added to encourage a certain person's interpretation.

It no doubtedly happened. Spartain has listed some of the most common ones.

[Dravin]

So, how might I recognize the reality, while affirming faith? I might grant the point in interfaith dialogues. I might footnote in scholarly texts. What I would not do is make the proviso a front and center statement in the midst of my church's primary statement of faith (i.e. the Articles of Faith). I especially would not give the proviso such prominence if my church considered our Articles of Faith to be inspired scriptures themselves. I would feel no obligation to highlight, spotlight, underline and boldface a perceived difficulty.

The thing is that it is a part of our doctrine without the Articles of Faith. Consider:

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

The errors/things lost* in the Bible is a fundamental explanation for the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon (and other modern scripture) and the need for continuing revelation (and the apostasy that predicates a restoration). The thing is, from the LDS perspective, this isn't a difficulty anymore so than the fulfillment of the Law of Moses is a difficulty for mainstream Christians. Though I do understand a significant part of your point, that there is more at work here then a scholarly admission of distance from source documents and the fallibility of human translators, and you are correct. When a Evangelical admits to errors in translation and a LDS does they are very likely saying very different things.

*Honestly, I think a fair amount of the things lost, or the errors, are the loss of proper understanding and interpretation of scripture. For instance, that scriptures talking about the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the knowledge that they are talking about unity of purpose not being were effectively lost by the viewing of them through the lens of the Trinity across generations.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Spartan117]

I would feel no obligation to highlight, spotlight, underline and boldface a perceived difficulty.

My intention was to point out the sections of each verse or quote that was most important to the topic. I've talked about things being quoted out of context, I was trying not to cherry pick bits and pieces so as not to be a hypocrite. That's all. I apologize

For what it's worth, I think you'll be waaay ahead of me in the line to the celestial kingdom, Trinity or no Trinity. I struggle to not come off as confrontational as I do. I'm still learning how. It's a process. Hugs?

[prisonchaplain]

Spartan...I believe you misunderstand my point...what I find disconcerting about the LDS take on the Bible is that the Articles of Faith highlight the question mark about Bible translation--not that you did.

Dravin makes the point clearer...LDS teaching is that truths were lost, and the latter revelations needed, to complete knowledge. Thus the problem in Bible translation is a key component of your doctrine.

For us that do not believe there was a Great Apostasy, the reliability of the Bible is crucial. This is especially true for Protestants, since our faith is built upon the scriptures, rather than church tradition. In essence, the "as far as it is translated correctly" exception is a challenge to our most authoritative source.

[Spartan117]

For us that do not believe there was a Great Apostasy, the reliability of the Bible is crucial. This is especially true for Protestants, since our faith is built upon the scriptures, rather than church tradition. In essence, the "as far as it is translated correctly" exception is a challenge to our most authoritative source.

So which version of the scriptures is your faith based on, and why is that version the authoritative version

over all others?

[prisonchaplain]

So which version of the scriptures is your faith based on, and why is that version the authoritative version

I'll answer your question by saying most of them. The NASB is probably one of the most accurate, in that it is more literal (word for word), and yet modern enough that the translators had much better manuscripts to work with than the KJV ones did (Snow referenced this in a recent post). The NIV is actually quite good as well. I prefer the TNIV, though it is now out of publication. That one uses gender-neutral pronouns whenever the original languages allow for it--more like we write today.

Most translations done by committees of scholars offer sound work, that is cross-checked. They are reliable. There is very little difference that rises to the level of changing doctrine. The mostly wrangle over jots and tittles.

Additionally, a good portion of our pastors, and, of course, all of our professors, have training in Greek, and usually Hebrew. So, they also look to the original languages for added depth of meaning and background.

I'm not contending that our translations are all exactly perfect. Instead, I am saying that they are reliable, and give us what God wants us to have. The "except" phrase in the Articles is not even without merit. However, when that phrase becomes part of the primary doctrine statement of the church, it becomes a very strong hesitation. I am supposing it is there in part because of the doctrine of the Great Apostasy and the belief that precious truths are missing from the Bible.

[james12]

I'm not contending that our translations are all exactly perfect. Instead, I am saying that they are reliable, and give us what God wants us to have. The "except" phrase in the Articles is not even without merit. However, when that phrase becomes part of the primary doctrine statement of the church, it becomes a very strong hesitation. I am supposing it is there in part because of the doctrine of the Great Apostasy and the belief that precious truths are missing from the Bible.

I would agree, at least in part, with your above statement. However, I believe there is another reason as well. It is the importance of the Book of Mormon.

In the introduction to every Book of Mormon is printed these words:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

The keystone of our religion! And indeed it is. Our church rises or falls based on the truth of the Book of Mormon. Growing up in the church I must have had more lessons than I can count on my two hands about what a keystone is and does.

Also, few long time members of this church do not know this statement from President Benson where he even chided members of the church for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. He says:

In 1829, the Lord warned the Saints that they are not to trifle with sacred things. (See D&C 6:12.) Surely the Book of Mormon is a sacred thing, and yet many trifle with it, or in other words, take it lightly, treat it as though it is of little importance.

In 1832, as some early missionaries returned from their fields of labor, the Lord reproved them for treating the Book of Mormon lightly. As a result of that attitude, He said, their minds had been darkened. Not only had treating this sacred book lightly brought a loss of light to themselves, it had also brought the whole Church under condemnation, even all the children of Zion. And then the Lord said, “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon.” (D&C 84:54–57.)

Has the fact that we have had the Book of Mormon with us for over a century and a half made it seem less significant to us today? Do we remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon? …If the early Saints were rebuked for treating the Book of Mormon lightly, are we under any less condemnation if we do the same? (“The Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, Jan. 1992, 2, 4)

In almost every instance where we talk about incorrect translation of the Bible it is compared to the Book of Mormon.

[MrShorty]

Sometimes I wonder if we are too quick to invoke the 8th AoF: "Oh, ______ is difficult to explain from the Bible because the Bible isn't translated correctly." Rather than putting forth the effort to truly understand how the Bible explains ______ and to acknowledge the difficulties in explaining ______ using the Bible alone.

For us that do not believe there was a Great Apostasy, the reliability of the Bible is crucial. This is especially true for Protestants, since our faith is built upon the scriptures, rather than church tradition. In essence, the "as far as it is translated correctly" exception is a challenge to our most authoritative source.

This is interesting. Similar to the OP, I've always taken the 8th AoF to be some kind of comment around textual criticism and the inherint difficulties in copying and translating the text of the Bible. Could it be that, at its core, the 8th AoF is more a refutation of sola scriptura?

In much the same way that James12 describes the BoM as our keystone, sola scriptura is a keystone to Protestants. Without it, Protestantism kind of loses its "authority."

[Vort]

Sometimes I wonder if we are too quick to invoke the 8th AoF: "Oh, ______ is difficult to explain from the Bible because the Bible isn't translated correctly." Rather than putting forth the effort to truly understand how the Bible explains ______ and to acknowledge the difficulties in explaining ______ using the Bible alone.

This is interesting. Similar to the OP, I've always taken the 8th AoF to be some kind of comment around textual criticism and the inherint difficulties in copying and translating the text of the Bible. Could it be that, at its core, the 8th AoF is more a refutation of sola scriptura?

In much the same way that James12 describes the BoM as our keystone, sola scriptura is a keystone to Protestants. Without it, Protestantism kind of loses its "authority."

I believe you are right. In my mind, Joseph Smith's comments about the Bible being "translated correctly" can be understood equally well by saying that the Bible must be "interpreted correctly". Much of the "mistranslation" of the Bible is, I believe, really just the perpetuation of misinterpretations transmitted for centuries. I think it's telling that there is no "canonical" (if I can use the term) mistranslation that we point to and say, "See, there, that's a mistranslation of the Bible." Even such things as "the Lord repented that he had made man", which Joseph Smith changed to "Noah repented that the Lord had made man", is quickly seen as a Hebrew expression that does not indicate "repentance" of the type we must experience.

[Dravin]

I believe you are right. In my mind, Joseph Smith's comments about the Bible being "translated correctly" can be understood equally well by saying that the Bible must be "interpreted correctly". Much of the "mistranslation" of the Bible is, I believe, really just the perpetuation of misinterpretations transmitted for centuries. I think it's telling that there is no "canonical" (if I can use the term) mistranslation that we point to and say, "See, there, that's a mistranslation of the Bible." Even such things as "the Lord repented that he had made man", which Joseph Smith changed to "Noah repented that the Lord had made man", is quickly seen as a Hebrew expression that does not indicate "repentance" of the type we must experience.

You always did strike me as a smart fellow Vort.

P.S. Funny how we tend to think people who agree with us are smart.

[annewandering]

People that agree with us ARE smart. Arent they?

[Vort]

You always did strike me as a smart fellow Vort.

P.S. Funny how we tend to think people who agree with us are smart.

Oh...uh, yeah, I guess you already said that...*blush*

That's what I get for responding to a thread without reading through it first. Not that this will stop me from doing the same thing next time.

Let this be a lesson as to how smart I am.

[mnn727]

As a matter of faith, I believe that God preserves his Word, that he did indeed guide and does guide translation efforts.

.

While I understand a great many people believe the above as you do, I don't understamd how anyone can believe God preserves His word and guides translation efforts with just the mistakes/additions listed in the O.P.

Sorry to say, that just makes no sense to me.

[RMGuy]

I also believe the Book of Mormon so far as it is translated correctly.

-RM

[annewandering]

While I understand a great many people believe the above as you do, I don't understamd how anyone can believe God preserves His word and guides translation efforts with just the mistakes/additions listed in the O.P.

Sorry to say, that just makes no sense to me.

God can inspire us but we dont always listen.

[Dravin]

Oh...uh, yeah, I guess you already said that...*blush*

That's what I get for responding to a thread without reading through it first. Not that this will stop me from doing the same thing next time.

Let this be a lesson as to how smart I am.

Oh I wasn't trying to call you out for repetition or anything. Heavens knows I reiterate points with my own (slightly different) take on the same idea. It's just nice to know you aren't the only one who holds an idea, though I don't claim my thought is an original one, I'm sure I was exposed to someone making a claim for it in the past.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

While I understand a great many people believe the above as you do, I don't understamd how anyone can believe God preserves His word and guides translation efforts with just the mistakes/additions listed in the O.P.

Sorry to say, that just makes no sense to me.

Consider that there are nearly 30,000 manuscripts, that we are discussing 66 books, written by 40 authors, over 1400+ years, and that the number of controversies is razor thin, and I see great sense in trusting that God guided the translation efforts, and that what we have is reliable.

The lengthiest example of a problem passage is the longer ending of Mark. The most controversial teachings in that passage are that we can drive out demons in Jesus name, that tongues will follow believers, and that the believers would survive poisonous snakes. Yet, in other Bible passages demons are driven out in Jesus' name, tongues followed the believers, and a snake bites Paul, and he survives. So, whether the longer ending is legitimate (and we now believe it probably is not), God's word was not corrupted by its temporary inclusion. Likewise with most of the controversial passages. What we have in the Bible is more rock solid than any classic literature in existance, by an exponential ratio.

[Justice]

This is especially true for Protestants, since our faith is built upon the scriptures, rather than church tradition.

PC, in all seriousness, I believe your beliefs are built on tradtions and dogma far more than you know. Many of the truths you profess were in the hands of wicked people who altered teachings, beliefs, and doctrines to fit their own views. One very small example is indulgences. I'm confident that wasn't part of what Christ taught.

(I'm not saying you believe in indulgences, I'm saying you believe doctrines that were controlled and taught by people who instituted indulgences).

Edited October 25, 2011 by Justice

[Justice]

I have heard it said that the Bible is "God-breathed," thus making it the perfect word of God.

My comment would be that Adam was also "God-breathed," yet God did not control him, nor was he perfect.

God does not prevent man from making changes, not even to His word.

This belief that the "Bible is God-breathed" is rather narrow-minded in my view.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, in all seriousness, I believe your beliefs are built on tradtions and dogma far more than you know. Many of the truths you profess were in the hands of wicked people who altered teachings, beliefs, and doctrines to fit their own views. One very small example is indulgences. I'm confident that wasn't part of what Christ taught.

(I'm not saying you believe in indulgences, I'm saying you believe doctrines that were controlled and taught by people who instituted indulgences).

If I were to discover that some LDS leaders did some underhanded deeds while holding church office, I doubt that those revelations would effect your testimony about any doctrines those same leaders might have espoused. Likewise, it would likely be an easy matter to discover faults in the Catholic leadership, particularly from the 300s and 400s, when many key confessions were being formulated. None of that changes whether the doctrines were true or not. As for indulgences, I am fairly certain they were a rather temporary practice instituted several centuries later than the time when the major creeds were developed.

Indulgences

Edited October 25, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

This belief that the "Bible is God-breathed" is rather narrow-minded in my view.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (NIV)

[annewandering]

. As for indulgences, I am fairly certain they were a rather temporary practice instituted several centuries later than the time when the major creeds were developed.

Indulgences

hmm I dont think they were temporary. I am not a scholar on Catholic practices but I do know that when my fathers boss died his wife paid 10k to the church. During the funeral the priest told the attendees that the man's wife had lessened his time in hmm was it perdition?, anyway it had helped get him to heaven sooner.

That was about 1968 or so.

Whatever your religion I am not saying you are selling indulgences or anything of the sort, PrisonChaplain just so you know. Just saw that line and wanted to comment on it, not the topic so much.

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof , for correction, for training in righteousness.

I rather prefer this version. God breathed just sounds odd to me. :)

I see nothing wrong with this verse providing its not mistranslated and is actually scripture. lol. Remembering of course the Songs of Solomon. Considering how the Bible came about sometimes its confusing what is actually inspired scripture and what has been added to or changed in the Bible by people who were not inspired.

Edited October 25, 2011 by annewandering

[phi39]

...

"As far as it is translated correctly" is not unreasonable

... I just want the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regard to the Bible to be communicated and represented correctly.

That sounds pretty close to the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy, which in a nutshell is just a fancy way of saying "the Bible is true." See the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, Article X.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

So Mormons and Evangelicals agree that it is true as far as it is correctly translated, but the issue is more than that isn't it? It has more to do with transmission of the text than with translation.

If the Mormon view (as far as I understand it at this point) were just that the modern day revelations complete the ancient ones, then yet again evangelicals might agree that such a thing could happen. After all, the NT did fulfill the OT. If this were the case, then we would only be talking about whether the NT left any major loose ends in need of further revelation. I don't think so; the "story arch" seems pretty well wrapped up by Revelation 22 (not that we don't still have plenty of questions, of course).

I recall reading that "many plain and precious truths" were removed from the Bible (Nephi? First Vision?). And that is where the issue comes to a head. I think the phrase "translation" is confusing and "transmission" would be more accurate. If truths have been removed, then scripture has not been transmitted, and if that is true then yes, I can see a big need for fresh revelation--a reboot!

Would I be right to say then that you do believe the Bible to be the word of God, but not in the same way as evangelicals? How does that play out practically?