2 Nephi 29:3

[Saab900man]

2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

[Palerider]

2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

you mean from all your LDS teachings no one ever explained it to you ????......

[Guest Yediyd]

2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

Here we go again!! Another arguement like the one over the word: Adieu...OK, let me see if I can make this simple for you...

...The Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION...not an original!!! The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"...so did G-d, Nephi was a prophet...he may or may not have understood exactly what he was saying about future attitudes, but he wrote what G-d told him to write and G-d told Joseph Smith what that symbles on the plates ment...in short, G-d knew what he was talking about and it certainly IS the truth! I came out of a Baptist church...we said this!! These passages touched me as I read them for the first time...I know G-d was speaking to me threw the prophets that I was wrong to assume that the Bible was the ONLY word of G-d...besides...the word "Bible" means: Books...(note the "s" at the end of that word)

[Saab900man]

<div class='quotemain'> 2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

Here we go again!! Another arguement like the one over the word: Adieu...OK, let me see if I can make this simple for you...

...The Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION...not an original!!! The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"...so did G-d, Nephi was a prophet...he may or may not have understood exactly what he was saying about future attitudes, but he wrote what G-d told him to write and G-d told Joseph Smith what that symbles on the plates ment...in short, G-d knew what he was talking about and it certainly IS the truth! I came out of a Baptist church...we said this!! These passages touched me as I read them for the first time...I know G-d was speaking to me threw the prophets that I was wrong to assume that the Bible was the ONLY word of G-d...besides...the word "Bible" means: Books...(note the "s" at the end of that word)

whoa calm down there was no arguement intented. I am LDS and know this is the word of God. I had come to that thought myself "The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"

I was just asking other LDS members to see if what they thought is what I thought.

[pam]

Of course this is just my opinion. But the word Bible doesn't always have to literally mean the bible as we know it. Bible can be any collections of writings that constitute the sacred text of a religion. Perhaps he was referring to some sacred writings of his time.

I think it's a very good question.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'> 2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

Here we go again!! Another arguement like the one over the word: Adieu...OK, let me see if I can make this simple for you...

...The Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION...not an original!!! The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"...so did G-d, Nephi was a prophet...he may or may not have understood exactly what he was saying about future attitudes, but he wrote what G-d told him to write and G-d told Joseph Smith what that symbles on the plates ment...in short, G-d knew what he was talking about and it certainly IS the truth! I came out of a Baptist church...we said this!! These passages touched me as I read them for the first time...I know G-d was speaking to me threw the prophets that I was wrong to assume that the Bible was the ONLY word of G-d...besides...the word "Bible" means: Books...(note the "s" at the end of that word)

whoa calm down there was no arguement intented. I am LDS and know this is the word of God. I had come to that thought myself "The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"

I was just asking other LDS members to see if what they thought is what I thought.

Sorry!! didn't mean to get all "testy", just thought I was dealing with another "troll" It gets old, after a while!!!

[Saab900man]

Of course this is just my opinion. But the word Bible doesn't always have to literally mean the bible as we know it. Bible can be any collections of writings that constitute the sacred text of a religion. Perhaps he was referring to some sacred writings of his time.

Here is my 2 cents on it.

Nephi saw the "Bible" or book from the mouth of the jews in the vision after Lehi saw the tree of life.

Thus he knew that a book was to come that many would follow.

I am sure since he was a Prophet the lord told him to write about the "Book" that gentiles would say was all the word of God.

I believe the Plates did not say "Bible" but Joseph since he is a prophet himself knew that was the book referred to by the power of God was/is the Bible.

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'> 2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

Here we go again!! Another arguement like the one over the word: Adieu...OK, let me see if I can make this simple for you...

...The Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION...not an original!!! The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"...so did G-d, Nephi was a prophet...he may or may not have understood exactly what he was saying about future attitudes, but he wrote what G-d told him to write and G-d told Joseph Smith what that symbles on the plates ment...in short, G-d knew what he was talking about and it certainly IS the truth! I came out of a Baptist church...we said this!! These passages touched me as I read them for the first time...I know G-d was speaking to me threw the prophets that I was wrong to assume that the Bible was the ONLY word of G-d...besides...the word "Bible" means: Books...(note the "s" at the end of that word)

whoa calm down there was no arguement intented. I am LDS and know this is the word of God. I had come to that thought myself "The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"

I was just asking other LDS members to see if what they thought is what I thought.

Sorry!! didn't mean to get all "testy", just thought I was dealing with another "troll" It gets old, after a while!!!

It ok I understand I should have been more detailed in my first post

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

Of course this is just my opinion. But the word Bible doesn't always have to literally mean the bible as we know it. Bible can be any collections of writings that constitute the sacred text of a religion. Perhaps he was referring to some sacred writings of his time.

Here is my 2 cents on it.

Nephi saw the "Bible" or book from the mouth of the jews in the vision after Lehi saw the tree of life.

Thus he knew that a book was to come that many would follow.

I am sure since he was a Prophet the lord told him to write about the "Book" that gentiles would say was all the word of God.

I believe the Plates did not say "Bible" but Joseph since he is a prophet himself knew that was the book referred to by the power of God was/is the Bible.

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'> 2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

How did Nephi know the name Bible this was not a "book" at this time.

Here we go again!! Another arguement like the one over the word: Adieu...OK, let me see if I can make this simple for you...

...The Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATION...not an original!!! The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"...so did G-d, Nephi was a prophet...he may or may not have understood exactly what he was saying about future attitudes, but he wrote what G-d told him to write and G-d told Joseph Smith what that symbles on the plates ment...in short, G-d knew what he was talking about and it certainly IS the truth! I came out of a Baptist church...we said this!! These passages touched me as I read them for the first time...I know G-d was speaking to me threw the prophets that I was wrong to assume that the Bible was the ONLY word of G-d...besides...the word "Bible" means: Books...(note the "s" at the end of that word)

whoa calm down there was no arguement intented. I am LDS and know this is the word of God. I had come to that thought myself "The man who TRANSLATED it certainly knew the word "Bible"

I was just asking other LDS members to see if what they thought is what I thought.

Sorry!! didn't mean to get all "testy", just thought I was dealing with another "troll" It gets old, after a while!!!

It ok I understand I should have been more detailed in my first post

Interesting take on it. Perhaps you should have put in your 10 cents worth.

[Dr T]

I thought it was (and still is) a good question too. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Would it be reasonable to say that the BoM is actually viewed as an inspired paraphrase, then?

[bunnzy]

i love that this prophecy has come true.

Alot of people do not accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, because they believe only in the Bible and that there is no other scripture.

[Guest Yediyd]

Would it be reasonable to say that the BoM is actually viewed as an inspired paraphrase, then?

Yup...and so is the Bible...

[CrimsonKairos]

Would it be reasonable to say that the BoM is actually viewed as an inspired paraphrase, then?

Perhaps. I guess it becomes semantic at a certain point.

What is the point of words? To convey meanings.

In that sense, God told Joseph Smith what meanings the Book of Mormon prophets were trying to convey with their writings.

Joseph Smith used several phrases and words the readers of his day were familiar with. I highly doubt the Nephites had a syntactical construct that meant "and it came to pass."

However, most of the Christians of Joseph Smith's day were familiar with "King James English" (the language of the KJV), and so it is entirely appropriate to use common phrases and words to convey the meaning of foreign words.

[Adomini22]

Well said. Good thread.

[prisonchaplain]

It might help if I explain what I mean by "inspired paraphrase." Up until the early 1970s, most evangelical churches used the King James Version of the Bible. Most know that it came out in 1611, and that it can be a challenging read--especially for those not raised in church.

So...The Living Bible came out. It was very controversial because it was not a translation. It was a "paraphrase." The author had simply taken the King James Version, and rewrote it in modern language. In essence it was "a translation from a translation."

Within the next 10 years some actual modern language translations started appearing, and the New International Version has become a favorite in many churches.

Not too many years ago, the New Living Translation came out. How is it different from the original "paraphrase?" It was translated. Scholars went to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and put them into English.

So, to my point. Since the BoM was original said to be in a language the Joseph Smith did not know, and that his rendoring of the text into English was done by inspiration from God, then, perhaps "paraphrase" is a better term. An "inspired paraphrase" would be more likely to contain anachronisms than a translation.

It might seem like a semantical point, but the word "translation" generally suggests that a work was rewritten in a different language by people who know both of them.

[Guest Yediydforyou]

It might help if I explain what I mean by "inspired paraphrase." Up until the early 1970s, most evangelical churches used the King James Version of the Bible. Most know that it came out in 1611, and that it can be a challenging read--especially for those not raised in church.

So...The Living Bible came out. It was very controversial because it was not a translation. It was a "paraphrase." The author had simply taken the King James Version, and rewrote it in modern language. In essence it was "a translation from a translation."

Within the next 10 years some actual modern language translations started appearing, and the New International Version has become a favorite in many churches.

Not too many years ago, the New Living Translation came out. How is it different from the original "paraphrase?" It was translated. Scholars went to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and put them into English.

So, to my point. Since the BoM was original said to be in a language the Joseph Smith did not know, and that his rendoring of the text into English was done by inspiration from God, then, perhaps "paraphrase" is a better term. An "inspired paraphrase" would be more likely to contain anachronisms than a translation.

It might seem like a semantical point, but the word "translation" generally suggests that a work was rewritten in a different language by people who know both of them.

Well and good, PC...but we accept that JS was a prophet, and G-d knows ALL the languages...G-d told JS what to write...JS didn't use his own words...he was INSPIRED just as the writers of the Bible and the original gold plates were...I don't see that as a paraphrase...I see that as a direct line from G-d. In fact, that is why I believe that the BoM is more correct than the Bible...because less "hands" have handled the translation.

Yed.

[Gabelma]

<div class='quotemain'>

It might help if I explain what I mean by "inspired paraphrase." Up until the early 1970s, most evangelical churches used the King James Version of the Bible. Most know that it came out in 1611, and that it can be a challenging read--especially for those not raised in church.

So...The Living Bible came out. It was very controversial because it was not a translation. It was a "paraphrase." The author had simply taken the King James Version, and rewrote it in modern language. In essence it was "a translation from a translation."

Within the next 10 years some actual modern language translations started appearing, and the New International Version has become a favorite in many churches.

Not too many years ago, the New Living Translation came out. How is it different from the original "paraphrase?" It was translated. Scholars went to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and put them into English.

So, to my point. Since the BoM was original said to be in a language the Joseph Smith did not know, and that his rendoring of the text into English was done by inspiration from God, then, perhaps "paraphrase" is a better term. An "inspired paraphrase" would be more likely to contain anachronisms than a translation.

It might seem like a semantical point, but the word "translation" generally suggests that a work was rewritten in a different language by people who know both of them.

Well and good, PC...but we accept that JS was a prophet, and G-d knows ALL the languages...G-d told JS what to write...JS didn't use his own words...he was INSPIRED just as the writers of the Bible and the original gold plates were...I don't see that as a paraphrase...I see that as a direct line from G-d. In fact, that is why I believe that the BoM is more correct than the Bible...because less "hands" have handled the translation.

Yed.

I think the difference is most translations of the bible are produced by scholars, Joseph Smith wasn't. The 1811 translation of the KJV used over 50 scholars of mixed faith.

Charley

[Guest Yediydforyou]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It might help if I explain what I mean by "inspired paraphrase." Up until the early 1970s, most evangelical churches used the King James Version of the Bible. Most know that it came out in 1611, and that it can be a challenging read--especially for those not raised in church.

So...The Living Bible came out. It was very controversial because it was not a translation. It was a "paraphrase." The author had simply taken the King James Version, and rewrote it in modern language. In essence it was "a translation from a translation."

Within the next 10 years some actual modern language translations started appearing, and the New International Version has become a favorite in many churches.

Not too many years ago, the New Living Translation came out. How is it different from the original "paraphrase?" It was translated. Scholars went to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and put them into English.

So, to my point. Since the BoM was original said to be in a language the Joseph Smith did not know, and that his rendoring of the text into English was done by inspiration from God, then, perhaps "paraphrase" is a better term. An "inspired paraphrase" would be more likely to contain anachronisms than a translation.

It might seem like a semantical point, but the word "translation" generally suggests that a work was rewritten in a different language by people who know both of them.

Well and good, PC...but we accept that JS was a prophet, and G-d knows ALL the languages...G-d told JS what to write...JS didn't use his own words...he was INSPIRED just as the writers of the Bible and the original gold plates were...I don't see that as a paraphrase...I see that as a direct line from G-d. In fact, that is why I believe that the BoM is more correct than the Bible...because less "hands" have handled the translation.

Yed.

I think the difference is most translations of the bible are produced by scholars, Joseph Smith wasn't. The 1811 translation of the KJV used over 50 scholars of mixed faith.

Charley

Exactly!!! ...and G-d used the unlearned to confound the learned...JS did not need an education...he had revelation.

[prisonchaplain]

Well and good, PC...but we accept that JS was a prophet, and G-d knows ALL the languages...G-d told JS what to write...JS didn't use his own words...he was INSPIRED just as the writers of the Bible and the original gold plates were...I don't see that as a paraphrase...I see that as a direct line from G-d. In fact, that is why I believe that the BoM is more correct than the Bible...because less "hands" have handled the translation.

Yed.

This reminds me of the twin gifts of tongues and interpretation.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'll just say that I'd rather read a paraphrase revealed by God than a translation by the arm of man. B)

[Guest Yediydforyou]

I'll just say that I'd rather read a paraphrase revealed by God than a translation by the arm of man. B)

Yeah, What HE said!!!!!

[prisonchaplain]

Nothing too wrong with a translation of text that was inspired by God, rendored by people anointed and gifted by God. :-)

[Guest Yediyd]

Nothing too wrong with a translation of text that was inspired by God, rendored by people anointed and gifted by God. :-)

Exactly!!!!