Posted on 07/01/2013 6:16:37 AM PDT by Colofornian
Although Joseph Smith said God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 correct, many changes were made in later editions. There are at least 3,913 changes, and not all of them minor or merely grammatical. The LDS Church suggests that the changes are unimportant, but actual examination does not bear this out, especially when one considers that the Golden Plates were supposedly translated letter-by-letter by the power of God (H. of C. 1, pp. 54-55). Spelling or grammatical errors are one thing, but changes in doctrine and errors in consistency and common sense are quite another.
Doctrine
1) Title page: 1830: "by Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor."
Today: "translated by Joseph Smith, Jr."
2) First Book of Nephi, p. 25, 1830: "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."
Today: 1 Nephi 11: 18: "is the mother of the Son of God."
3) First Book of Nephi, p. 25, 1830: "behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"
Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"
4) Second Book of Nephi, p. 117, 1830: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."
Today: 2 Nephi 30:6: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."
5) Book of Alma, p. 303, 1830: "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable according to their wills."
1950: Alma 29:4: "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men according to their wills."
Today: Alma 29:4: "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable according to their wills."
6) Book of Alma p. 315, 1830: "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow."
Today: Alma 32:30: "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow."
Consistency
1) Book of Mosiah, p. 200, 1830: "on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God."
Today: Mosiah 21:28: "on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God."
2) Book of Mosiah, p. 214, 1830: "My soul was wrecked with eternal torment."
Today: Mosiah 27:29: "My soul was racked with eternal torment."
3) Book of Alma, p. 278, 1830: "the multitude beheld that the man had fell dead." (Also p. 310)
Today: Alma 19:24: "the multitude beheld that the man had fallen dead."
4) Book of Alma, p. 388; 1830: "For behold, Ammon had sent to their support."
Today: Alma 57:17: "For behold, Ammoron had sent to their support."
Now, was it the Lord or Joseph Smith who could not spell, keep doctrine and characters straight. And who was it that even had serious problems with grammar and logic? There are even more strange things such as the following:
1) Jacob 7:27: "and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." (What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in Egyptian living in America around 421 B.C.?)
2) Helaman 9:6: "when the judge had been murdered, he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy" (How can one be stabbed by a garb (garment)?)
3) Alma 13: 1: "my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children." (How can you ‘cite’ someone’s mind ‘forward’ to something that happened in the past?)
4) Alma 24:19: "they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war for peace." (What is a ‘weapon of peace’, and can it be the same as a weapon of war?)
5) Alma 43:38: "they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body." (How does one shield oneself from the vital parts of one’s own body?)
6) Ether 15:31: "And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he struggled for breath, he died." (Impossible)
The sad thing is even after so many revisions it’s still chock full of inconsistencies and anachronisms.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
HMMMmmm...
With each new translation, it was an opportunity for small changes to creep in either to correct grammatical errors or to reflect social changes in language. [Kirkwood, post #145]
Kirkwood, if you think one of the reasons the Bible was changed was to "reflect social changes in language" [post #145];
and, if you think the Book of Mormon was changed for [some?] of the same reasons as the Bible...
...then please explain this:
If Bible translations changed -- for example -- some of the Kings James English from UK of the 15th century is now archaic...then ...
...why did Joseph Smith deliberately choose 15th century Kings James English to communicate to 19th century readers?
Kings James language was fit for some of the phrases in Shakespeare plays of the early 19th century;
And it certainly was read from the pulpits in the 19th century;
as well as in Bibles elsewhere;
but 19th century King English wasn't to be found...
...in the newspapers...
...circulars...
...the overwhelming majority of books...
...in 19th century America or the UK.
And, btw, the overwhelming majority of Kings James language within the Book of Mormon is still there -- it wasn't removed thru the generations since 1830 to "update" it for "social changes."
(there goes that theory of yours)
Hence, Smith did exactly the opposite of your theory: Instead of conveying to readers a translation "fit" with how 19th century Americans wrote and talk, Smith chose a KJV vernacular.
Why?
Well...if you wanted to pass off a counterfeit "addition" to the Bible...what better way to camouflage it?
For me, part of the beauty of that passage is its universal application, because of the many situations we find those who claim to be or act as our prophets, yet turn out to be deceivers.
In the many situational definitions we can apply to the term "false prophet", in each case His observations and advice about recognizing deceivers remain solid and sound.
Not just those who claim to prophecize on God's behalf, but any of those who predict or make promises in our lives.
The older I get and more I've lived through, the more I see such universal truths in the Bible. Years ago, I would not have said this, but now I see that everything we need is in that book. It's like nothing else.
You might see it that way; and indeed, most preachers preach it that way; but it is clearly NOT what the text says.
You'll get no argument from me about THESE statements!
My experience as a teacher has shown me it is a lot easier to teach folks what they DON'T know about the Bible; than to UNteach them what they are convinced is IN the Bible.
Interesting how the Bible has become such a source for argument and that His Church has become so divided.
How He must grieve and ache for His lost children. Was His sacrifice all in vain? How full must be His cups of Justice and Wrath.
I have come to learn that we can choose to know His Love and Peace, but sadly, foolish, proud, wretched children that we are, we appear to be in line to learn to fear His Wrath and Justice instead.
In US history and social attitudes to how one practices his or her religion, 1857 & 2013 are different worlds. The religion that we most fear is radical/political Islam, not Mormons.
In US history and social attitudes to how one practices his or her religion, 1857 & 2013 are different worlds. The religion that we most fear is radical/political Islam, not Mormons.
The author's name? (Solomon)
The source? (Hebrew-translation.org)
I suppose then if you were a Jew, you wouldn't be an observant one, now would you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.