Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
Guess Chick is next!:)
- - - - -
UGH, I hope not Chick tracts gave me nightmares as a kid.
Chick will not be allowed at all.
Consistency does not seem to be the theme BWDIK!
Facts are facts and Ehrman’s “facts” are questionable at BEST.
The D&C, which has only had 2 ‘manifestos’ in the last 150 years and contains several questionable ‘prophecies’.
There is a biblical test for a prophet and JS fails it (prophecy that does not come to pass) so...that makes all of his ‘revelations’ invalid according to the Bible.
It is indeed an area of historical mystery.
- - - - - - -
It is not, that is a fallacy that those who promote distrust of the Bible use.
For starters, read the books I listed then, if you wish, I can give you some more works on the process and history but start with the basics.
Smith was suppose to have "fixed" this with his version of the KJV. How much did this clarify the KJV? Actually this 'supernatural' repair of the KJV did nothing to repair it - but it did display the totally bogus translation power of smith.
And none of the so called variants were ‘fixed’ by smith either.
LOL.
Actually, efforts to correct the NT text were well underway before the 1800s. Today, NT textual criticism has come a long from those earliest efforts. Joseph Smith penned, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”, and today the rest of the Christian world agrees. Except for those who cling to the obviously false belief in inerrancy.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
The point I was making is that the history of the D&C is much clearer than the history of the NT. I hope you can agree with that. It doesn’t require any belief in the D&C as revelations.
Come on Don - comparing apples to rocks here. The efforts to improve the TR were based upon the discovery of older, more reliable MS that allowed Textural critics to more readily identify the errors contained in the vulgate (and thus the KJV). Not suprisingly, smith carried these same errors into the bom through his volumous copy of the KJV. Not suprising that Smith plagerized the KJV for major portions of the bom.
Smith's work of 'fixing' the KJV was done in complete ABSENCE of these ms. In fact ALL of smith's changes are not even REMOTELY supported by these ms record. Just like the results of smith's translation of the Joseph smith papyri eh don?
Let's see...the objective of NT textual criticism is to improve the version of the NT to be closer to the original manuscript and thus a better reflection of the version inspired by God. NT textual criticism uses the techniques of rational man. Who knows, they may be inspired!
Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, worked at improving the NT text to be closer to the original manuscript and thus a better reflection of the version inspired by God. As you pointed out, he was not using the techniques of NT textual criticism, nor did he have any other manuscripts to draw from. He was doing the work strictly based on inspiration from God.
Which technique do you think will be more successful? So you see, I agree that the comparison is apples to rocks. I prefer the inspiration of a prophet of God over the rational man any day. :-)
How about a few citations then? It shouldn't be hard given their are "many verses in the Bible" which show this. Why didn't Paul know about these verses when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
This is really not meant to be contentious or a shot across the bow.
So you'd have no problem with people posting articles which question the foundation of the Book of Mormon in this "ecumenical" forum. Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And side by side, smith's 'translation' is bogus with typical signature of one who hasn't a clue with what he is dealing with. Example - Psalm 95:11 is quoted three times in Hebrews. The JST adds nothing to the first quotation (Heb. 3:11), adds 22 words to the second quotation (4:3), and adds 5 words to the third quotation just two verses later (4:5). Apparently, smith didn’t understand that Hebrews was quoting the same Old Testament text in all three verses.
Take also this
John 4:2 — (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) KJV
John 4:3 — Now the Lord knew this, though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples; JST
John 4:2 — 
So if smith was so 'inspired' why didn't he translate to the more correct MS?
Smith's translation skills are bogus - he went about trying to force his doctrine upon the bible - regardless of the 'correct'. No, I trust God in the preservation of His word - and not that of a convicted treasure seeker.
Only from Thomas Jefferson's Bible. ;^)
That is funny!LOL
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.