Article 8:
We believe the bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
I can accept that they believe that!
In order that I better understand, what parts of the Bible are not translated correctly?

What?
Nobody wants to propose an answer?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 05:13PM by thedesertrat1.

The answer is that any part of the Bible that the church dislikes at a particular time is translated incorrectly. But you knew that, didn't you?

But are there any parts of the "bible" that the "church " has declared wrongly translated?

Yes, any portion that JS revised. But the whole thing, including the JS revisions, are subject to further revision as necessary.

Okay, I'll bite. The parts of the Bible that weren't "translated" correctly are the parts of the Bible (most of it, actually) that Joseph Smith, in his (less than) infinite wisdom, didn't get around to translating (re creating a new story).

Recall, though, that the church has always insisted that the JS version was incomplete and even the things Joseph changed might need to be changed again.

Eternal progression.

Eternal progression--and eternal deniability.

Infernal correction.

The supply room at the COB has a very large stock of erasers.

I think the first thing to realize is there is no one bible.

There are thousands of translations into hundreds of languages.

I have a six column bible. By that I mean there are six different english translations side by side for comparison.

They don't always agree.

Different bibles even have different books. For hundreds of years books were included and excluded then forgotten.

The Catholic bible has books not in the Baptist bible. The Ethiopian bible is the only one I am aware of that has the book of Enoch. Even though Jesus quotes it in the new testament over 30 times.

One of the oldest bibles, the Codex Sinaticus written if I remember correctly around 1500 years ago show signs of corrections, additions and deletions to the text.

So on a whole, the concept that there is a perfect book.written by divine mandate that is universal to all of Christianity is a myth.

Can you clarify the Baptist bible you reference? I have atte nded Baptist churches both here and in the UK and have never heard of such an edition. A variety of Bible translations are used by Baptists, as in other denominations. There is no one authorized version. Most commonly used are KJV, NKJV (which is not a new translation but a rephrasing in modern English), NIV, ESV, New American Standard.

There is my point.

How many translations? Not one will have the additional books the catholics use. Not all of these versions will agree with each other and when compared to spanish or german or french translations they won't agree.

Which translation is correct?

What doctrines are different one from another. Translations of any document can vary in word usage but still retain the essential meaning surely.

The biggest doctrinal difference I knew of at the time (according to my Jesuit teachers) was the debate between grace and good works to get in to Heaven. At the time (this was the late 1970s and early 1980s), the Roman Catholic church, in a stance similar to that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, taught that to get in to Heaven, one had to have performed good works during one's lifetime as well as receiving God's grace. Most Protestants, I was told, didn't recognize the necessity of performing "good works" (charity).

That has changed a bit. According to a story that aired on NPR a couple of years back, the Roman Catholic church has come closer to the Protestant view of grace owing to the ongoing ecclesiastical discussions between the two groups

I see that as a difference in interpretation rather than a difference in translation. I have a Bible that gives several translations side by side. While word differences/choices are obvious I am curious about claims that the doctrine or meaning is different.

Example: 2 Corinthians 5:1

NIV Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

New American Standard For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

KJV For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

I picked this verse purely at random. Different word usage coming from different translators that I think anyone would accept but the same meaning in each. I think the biggest issue is differences in interpretation/understanding rather than translation.

Blindguy, as an aside to the point your made, the general protestant view is that works are important but not as a means to earn salvation but as the demonstration of a saving grace that has already taken place.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see that as a difference in interpretation
> rather than a difference in translation. I have
> a Bible that gives several translations side by
> side. While word differences/choices are obvious
> I am curious about claims that the doctrine or
> meaning is different.
>
> Example: 2 Corinthians 5:1
>
> NIV Now we know that if the earthly tent we live
> in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an
> eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
>
>
> New American Standard For we know that if the
> earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we
> have building from God, a house not made with
> hands, eternal in the heavens.
>
> KJV For we know that if our earthly house of
> this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building
> of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in
> the heavens.

Maybe it wasn't true in the past, but in my mind's eye, I see a very big difference between the use of the word "tent" in the INV and New American Standard Bibles and the use of the word "house" in the KJV version. "Tent" suggests something that can be easily torn down, while "house" suggests something sturdier and that cannot be torn down so easily. While I would agree with you that the difference is relatively small, literal battles have been fought over differences less significant than this.
>
> I picked this verse purely at random. Different
> word usage coming from different translators that
> I think anyone would accept but the same meaning
> in each. I think the biggest issue is differences
> in interpretation/understanding rather than
> translation.
>
> Blindguy, as an aside to the point your made, the
> general protestant view is that works are
> important but not as a means to earn salvation but
> as the demonstration of a saving grace that has
> already taken place.

I would say that is a fair point. However, among white Evangelicals of nearly all persuasions, good works are treated as being separate from, and less important to, having God's grace.

True enough, but grace that has to be earned is not truly grace. Evangelicals would define grace as God's unearned favor. If grace came because of works it would be, as Paul put it, wages earned.

Whether or not one is saved through grace or good works is near the heart of the Catholic-Protestant split that started the Protestant reformation (the actual cause was the selling of penances by the Catholic church.) Both have advantages and disadvantages, though I'll focus on the big disadvantages here.

The big disadvantage for good works is what can be considered good works and who makes that determination. While the modern Roman church doesn't define good works much beyond charitable work, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, per a number of past posts here and elsewhere, specifys what charities members can and cannot support to be considered good works.

On the other hand, relying solely on God's grace has a very big disadvantage, and it is the same disadvantage that comes from receiving the Second Anointing from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; namely, that since one is saved through God's grace, you not only have to do nothing else to get in to Heaven but you can behave very destructively and still enter God's kingdom. Now I've heard the argument you made a few posts above this one about how, if you have God's grace, you will want to do good works, but it doesn't excuse the interpretation I've laide out in the previous sentence, because there are a number of white evangelical religions who believe in that interpretation.

Finally, as a now-atheist, I reject both interpretations along with the notion that there is a god to begin with. That said, my sympathies, partially because of my upbringing, lie with the Roman church's interpretation.

Ungodly deliberate bad behavior as you describe after claiming salvation by grace would indicate that the claim is false. No Christian I know believes what you suggest to be true.

>>At the time (this was the late 1970s and early 1980s), the Roman Catholic church, in a stance similar to that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, taught that to get in to Heaven, one had to have performed good works during one's lifetime as well as receiving God's grace.

I was raised in the Catholic church, and all I can say is that is NOT the doctrine of the church I was raised in. Catholics believe that works are the *result* of grace, and are not necessary to achieve grace. God's grace is freely given and cannot be earned through works.

The nuns who taught me stated that you could repent on your deathbed and be good to go to heaven. Catholics do not believe in lost causes. They believe that everyone is redeemable at any given moment.

I would agree as I indicated above. I would add that there is no check list of good works. Good works can be anything, any action deliberate or instinctive that reflects Christ in the believer. I agree, too, that it is never too late for a sincere confession of faith.

When I was taking Catholic religious classes when I was younger, I was told that Protestants (they grouped all non-Catholic Christians in to the one category) did not accept any of the New Testament books between Hebrews and Revelations. The books in question would be James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John. I'm curious if those were the New Testament books left out of your Baptist Bible.

The books you mention are in the Protestant versions as well as the Catholic ones.

The Catholic bible has seven books that the Protestant canon does not. They are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Ester, and First and Second Maccabees. Some of those are sapiential like Ecclesiastes, others (Maccabees) read more like straight history than scripture. I believe the Catholic bible also contains some extra chapters in the Book of Daniel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 10:51PM by Lot's Wife.

If you are going to create a new religion in the midst of the old one you first have to attack the foundations of the old one in order to replace it.

Some really choice stuff got left out of the bible in the process of translation. For example, I don't know of anywhere in the bible where it says that in the far future a great prophet named Joseph would be a man worthy of praise. The world needed the Book of Mormon to make that clear.

When Joseph translated the bible he made sure that part was restored. If you have the LDS version of the bible check the appendix for Joseph's translation of Genesis 50:24 - 38 in my edition it is page 799.

It is very probable that when Joseph Smith said "Bible" he meant the King James version.

And there are several mistranslations of importance in the KJV, which also turn up (uncorrected) in the Book of Mormon:


"virgin" - 2 Nephi 17:14 = Isaiah 7:14
The Book of Mormon preserves some demonstrable mistranslations of the King James Version of the Bible. One notable example is Isaiah 7:14, which in the KJV is translated "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This is copied word for word into the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 17:14. The problem is that the Hebrew text has the word 'almah,' which does not mean "virgin," but "young woman": the Hebrew word for "virgin" is 'bethulah,' and most modern Bible translations do not use "virgin" to translate Isaiah 7:14. (Some Christians, including the author of Matthew 1:22-23, view this passage as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary, but that ignores the entire context of that chapter: the purpose of the prophecy was to answer King Ahaz' question about the outcome of his upcoming war with Syria and Israel.)

The error can be traced back to the fact that the King James translators relied heavily on the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by Jerome, from the 4th century A.D. Jerome, in turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament. In Greek there is only one word for both meanings ("virgin" and "young woman"), making the Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous. But why would Nephi be confused? He was (supposedly) in possession of the original Hebrew text, which would have had the word 'almah,' not 'bethulah.' But he mistranslates the passage just as Jerome and the King James translators mistranslated it many centuries later.

"Lucifer" - 2 Nephi 24:12 = Isaiah 14:12
Another remarkable example is at 2 Nephi 24:12, copied from Isaiah 14:12, as translated in the KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Here again the problem is a reliance on Jerome's Latin version (remember, from the 4th century A.D.!).

The only place the word "Lucifer" occurs in the entire Bible is in the King James Version at this passage. Other translations do not have "Lucifer" there (or anywhere at all), but translate the word correctly as "day-star," "star of the morning" or "morning star."

This passage, when read in context, is addressed to the king of Babylon, who was very proud and haughty and surrounded in worldly glory, but who was to be destroyed. "Lucifer" is used in Jerome's Latin (and, following Jerome, in the King James Version) to translate the Hebrew word 'helel', which means "morning star" (i.e., the planet Venus). The Hebrew root 'h-l-l' means "shine" or "boast," so it is probably a taunting pun in the Hebrew Isaiah. There were two Greek names for the planet, both similar: either 'heos-phoros' meaning "dawn-bringer," or 'phos-phoros' meaning "light-bringer." In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of this passage, probably made in the first or second century B.C., they translated 'helel' with the Greek word 'heos-phoros.' When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he used the Septuagint as his source and simply translated the Greek word for Venus into the Latin name of that planet, which is an exact translation of the Greek 'phos-phoros': luci-fer, from the Latin roots 'luc-' "light" and 'fer-' "bring, bear, carry."

It was not until well into the Christian era that the idea arose that "Lucifer" was a name, and that the verse applied to Satan and not to the king of Babylon. It is probably influenced by the (erroneous) assumption that Luke 10:18 (saying that Satan fell as lightning from heaven) is a reference to the Isaiah passage.

Oddly, the only other place in the Bible where the term "morning star" ('phosphoros') is used is at 2 Peter 1:19, where it refers to Jesus!

Revelations 2:28 and 22:16 also refer to the "morning star," meaning Jesus, but use a different Greek phrase made up of the Greek words for "morning" and "star." One verse promises the "morning star" as a reward to the faithful; the latter verse is Jesus' saying "I Jesus ... am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

This error is compounded in modern Mormon theology, with Lucifer as the name of a character in the endowment ceremony. See also D&C 76:25-27.

"steel"
Where the KJV mentions "steel" (three passages: one in a Psalm of David, one in Job, and one in Jeremiah) the original Hebrew text has either 'nechushah' or 'nechosheth,' both of which mean simply "copper" or "brass."

There are a number of terms in the original Hebrew that scholars have no idea for sure how to translate them, so they make a guess. Most guesses in more modern translations differ from the KJV translation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 07:13PM by RPackham.

Good stuff, RPack!

MY QUESTION STILL REMAINS::

According to LDS doctrine which parts of the bible are not translated corredtly??
Specifically BOOK CHAPTER and VERSE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2021 01:50PM by thedesertrat1.

Here's a more direct answer to your question.

You'll need an LDS version of the bible.

In the footnotes of each page they include any changes Joseph makes. Sometimes it is a single word, other times it is a whole verse or sentence.

Larger portions are in the appendix in the back.

Joseph completely rewrote huge amounts of Generis and oddly the book of John.

In addition the entire book of Moses as found in the pearl of great price was considered a lost part of the bible.

Head on over to the book of Jacob in the book of mormon and read a lost parable.

There are additional parts referenced in the doctrine and covenants.

If you want a deep dive you can simple stare and compare Joseph's full translation known as "Holy Scriptures" and available from the Church of Christ.

There are way too many changes to list but Joseph added stories about Adam, Enoch and Moses.

Thank you I appreciate you effort in responding

Once again Thank you all for your replies

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article 8:
> We believe the bible to be the word of God so far
> as it is translated correctly. We also believe the
> Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
> I can accept that they believe that!
> In order that I better understand, what parts of
> the Bible are not translated correctly?

Like EVERYTHING ELSE in Moroniville, it's ambiguous, amorphous, 'open to "interpretation"'/ "inclusive" (EXCLUSIVE)/ safe from deeper questions/ a closed subject. Period

The BOMb (book of moron bu||sh*t) is all made up [and they know that]. Therefore no interpretation.

The Bible, otoh, is 'real', and therefore they have to have an out. IOW, as far as it is translated correctly means NOTHING, it means it scares the MC to even Think About It. It means it isn't sure; that Mormonism isn't true, sure, or honest.

Like everything else in Mormonism, it's all only a guess, a (little) promise, a LOT of (dirty) WORK, and a BIG lie.