Mormon 9:33

[askandanswer]

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

[zil2]

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

Imperfection is not the same as error.  More than one Book of Mormon prophet lamented that there were things he could not adequately (in his own estimation) express because of the nature or difficulty of writing in their language (and perhaps on plates).  Also, there are places where a prophet corrects himself ("or in other words" type corrections - perhaps worried they'll be taken literally or that the idiom he's just written won't be understood correctly).  If I have to, I can find examples, but I'm hoping you're familiar enough to recognize these situations.

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

I believe we need to understand that they are writing in different text than what they speak on a daily basis.  There are always imperfections in translations as anyone that speaks more than one language understands.  The only way the Book of Mormon can be read without imperfections is through the witness of the Holy Ghost – which is even more true for the Bible but less a problem for those reading the Doctrine and Covenants in English.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Imperfection is not the same as error.  More than one Book of Mormon prophet lamented that there were things he could not adequately (in his own estimation) express because of the nature or difficulty of writing in their language (and perhaps on plates).  Also, there are places where a prophet corrects himself ("or in other words" type corrections - perhaps worried they'll be taken literally or that the idiom he's just written won't be understood correctly).  If I have to, I can find examples, but I'm hoping you're familiar enough to recognize these situations.

The prophets writing on metal plates for the Book of Mormon could not erase any imperfections – so interestingly there are places where such imperfections are corrected – when I have access to my library I will provide some examples.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

All of the writers represented in the Book of Mormon, from Nephi to Mormon and then Moroni, knew perfectly well that they were fallible men and that their record, however sincere their attitude and however honest their intentions, would fall short of perfection. Of course there are errors. It's a book, written in mortal languages by fallible human beings. As with any gospel teaching, it is only through the ministration of the Holy Ghost that we can actually receive truth to our hearts and minds. The words on the page contain information, often very important information, but it reflects truth only when viewed through the lens of the Holy Ghost.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The prophets writing on metal plates for the Book of Mormon could not erase any imperfections – so interestingly there are places where such imperfections are corrected – when I have access to my library I will provide some examples.

 

The Traveler

Exactly.

[mikbone]

The sealed 2/3 portion is likely the most correct book ever written.  And contains the fulness of the Gospel. 

Ether 4:4-7

Ether 12:23-26

 

AND

The Book of Mormon was translated into English by the power of God.  Not by a computer or team of linguists.

If there were any errors in inscription, God could have easily made adjustments.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by mikbone

[CV75]

16 hours ago, askandanswer said:

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

As the Title Page written by Mormon or Moroni states, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Also, Mormon 8: 17, "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire."

He was not the first Book of Mormon prophet to confess the possibility of imperfection and error in deciding what was correct to include in their writing: "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself. (1 Nephi 1: 6)."

Inasmuch as they confessed weakness according to the flesh, we too who are weak according to the flesh should be able to discern that which is of the Spirit, by God's grace.

This is a semantic question. Are there imperfections? It depends on what kind of imperfection you are looking for. It easy to assume "Yes." Is it the most correct of any book on earth? It is reasonable to assert "Yes," because "most correct" still allows room for imperfection since "most" is only a superlative adjective comparing the correctness of books, all of which can be said to contain imperfection of one kind or another.

[SilentOne]

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

The prophets writing on metal plates for the Book of Mormon could not erase any imperfections – so interestingly there are places where such imperfections are corrected – when I have access to my library I will provide some examples.

My dad has pointed out Alma 24:19 as an example several times

Quote

...and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.

 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, SilentOne said:

My dad has pointed out Alma 24:19 as an example several times

 

My favourite example of an imperfection, which might even be considered as a corrected error, is 3rd Nephi 23: 7 - 13, when Jesus instructed Nephi to include some content that had been left out. I view this as an example of Christ's involvement in the authorship of the Book of Mormon. 

[Ironhold]

23 hours ago, askandanswer said:

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

The "Reformed Egyptian" as we call it was somewhat analogous in nature to secretarial shorthand because it was a condensed way of transmitting large quantities of information. 

Contrary to popular belief, the processes of translating text and condensing text via shorthand aren't exactly scientific processes. There is room for nuance, and Mormon knew that future readers and translators wouldn't have a perfect time of it because they'd have to translate condensed text. 

[laronius]

On 8/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, askandanswer said:

Does Mormon 9:39 indicate that there are imperfection in what has been described as the most correct book on Earth? And if so, does anyone know what those imperfections might be?

Considering there are only 37 verses in that chapter then apparently we are missing at least two whole verses. So yes that would indicate an imperfection. 😃

But on a more serious note, I think the footnote on that word imperfection addresses your question pretty well.

[Carborendum]

On 8/5/2023 at 2:36 PM, SilentOne said:

My dad has pointed out Alma 24:19 as an example several times

I'm going to theorize that it was not really a mistake.

I believe this is a perfect example of how phrases differ in different languages.  I theorize that the phrase "weapons of peace" makes a lot more sense in Egyptian (when written by Alma).  But in Hebrew (or the Nephite version of it) it made so sense.  So, the phrasing was altered by Mormon as he was transcribing.

One reason why I put forth this theory is how often words take on different meanings in different languages.  A word has a core meaning that is fairly consistent throughout many languages.  But there are secondary meanings in so many languages that are usually not the obvious meaning.  And these secondary meanings do not translate well.

Even in English, "of" can mean "from" (referring to a location). But it would be ridiculous to think that "A ring of gold" means "a ring from (a place called) gold."  Instead, we say a phrase like "a ring made from (the material called) gold."

I wonder if the Egyptian derivation of "of" might have had a secondary meaning like "in place of".  That would be better translated as "for."  This would render the meaning "buried their weapons for peace" which is just what Mormon wrote.  But modern translations added that comma.

EXAMPLE: In Spanish there are two words that mean "for" in English.  Para and por.  And context is important when deciding which one to use.  Para has alternate meanings.  A local church in my area has a bilingual sign which bears the name of the church. "Bridge to Christ" & "Puente para Cristo."  Usually "to" would be translated with "a".  But they chose this way because para also means "to get to" or "in order to."  It's an unusual wording even in Spanish.  But it just plain sounds better in Spanish.

BTW, Egyptian is not exactly a sister language to Hebrew.  But it is like a cousin or second-cousin.  So, the analogy of Spanish and English is apropos.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Carborendum

[popatr]

On 8/4/2023 at 6:37 PM, Vort said:

...As with any gospel teaching, it is only through the ministration of the Holy Ghost that we can actually receive truth to our hearts and minds. The words on the page contain information, often very important information, but it reflects truth only when viewed through the lens of the Holy Ghost.

 

On 8/5/2023 at 9:48 AM, CV75 said:

...Inasmuch as they confessed weakness according to the flesh, we too who are weak according to the flesh should be able to discern that which is of the Spirit, by God's grace....

I take it as given that there are imperfections, as we were warned was possible.

I think the above posts are true but I want to add a warning label to them.  I think it's a good attitude to consider ourselves MORE fallible that the scripture writers, and hence we will make more mistakes by having interesting insights than by keeping the scripture boring and at face value.

I've got a line of apostates at another forum who drive that point home.

[CV75]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:07 PM, popatr said:

 

I take it as given that there are imperfections, as we were warned was possible.

I think the above posts are true but I want to add a warning label to them.  I think it's a good attitude to consider ourselves MORE fallible that the scripture writers, and hence we will make more mistakes by having interesting insights than by keeping the scripture boring and at face value.

I've got a line of apostates at another forum who drive that point home.

As long as the scripture writers were translated correctly -- including the Three Nephites?  

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:49 PM, CV75 said:

As long as the scripture writers were translated correctly -- including the Three Nephites?  

We don't know that the Three Disciples were Nephites.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

We don't know that the Three Disciples were Nephites.

From the synoptic header for Chapter 11 (and 11:1) we learn that Jesus visited the “people of Nephi” (subsequent italicized chapter summaries refer to them as Nephites). The land Bountiful where this arrival and first visits took place was a Nephite territory. The twelve disciples were chosen from among them (3 Nephi 12:2). So, I (and I assume the chapter summary foe Chapter 28) use the term “Nephite(s)” as a known demonym, for the people, the multitude, the disciples, and the three disciples accounted for in these chapters.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From the synoptic header for Chapter 11 (and 11:1) we learn that Jesus visited the “people of Nephi” (subsequent italicized chapter summaries refer to them as Nephites). The land Bountiful where this arrival and first visits took place was a Nephite territory. The twelve disciples were chosen from among them (3 Nephi 12:2). So, I (and I assume the chapter summary foe Chapter 28) use the term “Nephite(s)” as a known demonym, for the people, the multitude, the disciples, and the three disciples accounted for in these chapters.

Just because the writers of the chapter headings think they are Nephites is not proof. There were many lamanites that were survivors of the destruction at Christs death. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Just because the writers of the chapter headings think they are Nephites is not proof. There were many lamanites that were survivors of the destruction at Christs death. 

The "-ite" demonyms were done away with during the Nephite Zion period (4 Ne 17). When they eventually returned something close to 200 years later (v. 36), all who followed Christ were called Nephites. Obviously, this would include the surviving disciples of Christ. So I think "the three Nephites" is not an incorrect way of referring to them, even if we suppose that some of the disciples were not of the Nephite nation.

[CV75]

On 8/16/2023 at 5:37 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Just because the writers of the chapter headings think they are Nephites is not proof. There were many lamanites that were survivors of the destruction at Christs death. 

Yes, although some may have had Lamanite or other nationality or ethnicity, as I previously indicated, they were called Nephites in a demonymic sense by their contemporary Book of Mormon prophets who wrote the synoptic headers (and so in turn by us).

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

The "-ite" demonyms were done away with during the Nephite Zion period (4 Ne 17). When they eventually returned something close to 200 years later (v. 36), all who followed Christ were called Nephites. Obviously, this would include the surviving disciples of Christ. So I think "the three Nephites" is not an incorrect way of referring to them, even if we suppose that some of the disciples were not of the Nephite nation.

I believe the doctrinal term is "demonymic possession" !