LDS More Information:

[BigDaddy4]

How much of the Bible do we have that is original plus original language?

Why are there so many Bible translations, and which is the best?

Textual criticism - what is it?

 

[BigDaddy4]

If you have to go to other sources to see what is consistent then there is doubt as to what is the original source

Argument from ignorance.

 

[dzheremi]

If you have to go to other sources to see what is consistent then there is doubt as to what is the original source

This makes no sense. Having different manuscripts of the same material strengthens the consensus around the through-line of the corpus -- i.e., given that the thousands of manuscripts we do have are mostly in agreement with each other, the job of the translator can be focused on relatively few areas. It has nothing to do with which is "the original source". As far as I understand it (not a Biblical scholar here), it doesn't seem like many scholars go in for the idea of a single original source for any particular piece of writing. The hypothesized Q document mentioned earlier, for instance, is a collection of sayings found in common in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. Hence it is assumed that the two Gospels which share these sayings use both Mark and the hypothesized Q as sources.

So even these "original" Gospels in their autographs would be based on earlier writings (Mark) and collections (Q), and it has nothing to do with how they are translated, but with how they were supposedly originally composed.

This idea that all of the Bible was written in a single "original" language or "original" text that has since been corrupted by the fact of its transmission is something that Mormonism apparently shares with Islam, but is simply not a feature of any historic Christian community's approach to the scriptures.

 

[Rescued One]

Why are there so many different translations of he bible? What is the purpose for them even to attempt it?

I never asked them.

 

[fatboys]

Anyone who knows Greek and/or Hebrew can translate the ancient texts as they wish. Heck, you don't even need to know the languages to attempt it (i.e. Joseph Smith). But whatever the translation result is can be checked against the original languages for intent and context. Something JS did not do.

Just what is your beef exactly?

My beef is that there are many translations. Why?
My beef is that you do not have one single original copy of any part of the Bible. Yet you claim it is perfect word which you have no idea whether it is or not. And then you are critical of Joseph Smith that through inspiration corrected intent or tried to do so. That is my beef.....

 

[BigDaddy4]

My beef is that there are many translations. Why?
My beef is that you do not have one single original copy of any part of the Bible. Yet you claim it is perfect word which you have no idea whether it is or not. And then you are critical of Joseph Smith that through inspiration corrected intent or tried to do so. That is my beef.....

Your beef is rooted in unbelief. You, like the lds church, get to leave yourself an out by saying "as long as it is translated correctly". That's not belief that Jesus kept his word. And you ignore all the evidences for the accuracy of what texts we do have through a scientific method called textual criticism. Additionally, you ignore the Jewish method of how scrolls were duplicated for thousands of years. They were very meticulous.

To carry your argument out to its full extent, since we don't have the original stone tablets God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on, we shouldn't trust any of the "translations" or believe that we can trust that we have the correct words. That is building your house on the sands of doubt, not the rock of faith.

 

[fatboys]

Your beef is rooted in unbelief. You, like the lds church, get to leave yourself an out by saying "as long as it is translated correctly". That's not belief that Jesus kept his word. And you ignore all the evidences for the accuracy of what texts we do have through a scientific method called textual criticism. Additionally, you ignore the Jewish method of how scrolls were duplicated for thousands of years. They were very meticulous.

To carry your argument out to its full extent, since we don't have the original stone tablets God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on, we shouldn't trust any of the "translations" or believe that we can trust that we have the correct words. That is building your house on the sands of doubt, not the rock of faith.

Okay okay let me see if I understand. You believe that the Bible was written by prophets who wrote history or received inspiration on what the children of God must do to be obedient so they can be happy. Because of the power of God he has kept these words from being corrupted and are as pure as the day he spoke them. But instead of just one translation in which have different meaning and intent it is still pure gotchyA

 

[Rescued One]

My beef is that there are many translations. Why?
My beef is that you do not have one single original copy of any part of the Bible. Yet you claim it is perfect word which you have no idea whether it is or not. And then you are critical of Joseph Smith that through inspiration corrected intent or tried to do so. That is my beef.....

Eat chicken next time.

 

[fatboys]

Eat chicken next time.

I like chicken as well

 

[BigDaddy4]

Okay okay let me see if I understand. You believe that the Bible was written by prophets who wrote history or received inspiration on what the children of God must do to be obedient so they can be happy. Because of the power of God he has kept these words from being corrupted and are as pure as the day he spoke them. But instead of just one translation in which have different meaning and intent it is still pure gotchyA

Unless you speak and/or read the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramiac, EVERYTHING is a translation. Your position is a foolish position. Bibles are translated into Japanese, Spanish, Russion, Chinese, Korean, etc, etc, etc. No two languages will always have the exact same word for word translation, but that does not take away the intent of the translation. Furthermore, regardless of the language it is translated into, we still have the texts with the original language to gleen intent from.

The lds can ignore the evidence and spout out all the unsupported assertions about corruption of texts they want, but it only goes to show how desperate they are to make their brand of religion plausible. In the process, it makes God a liar.

 

[Peter1000]

“Correcting the Bible by the spirit of revelation, the Prophet restored a statement of John the Baptist which says that Christ is the Elias who was to restore all things. ([JST], John 1:21–28.) By revelation we are also informed that the Elias who was to restore all things is the angel Gabriel who was known in mortality as Noah. (D. & C. 27:6–7; Luke 1:5–25; Teachings,p. 157.) From the same authentic source we also learn that the promised Elias is John the Revelator. (D. & C. 77:9, 14.) Thus there are three different revelations which name Elias as being three different persons. What are we to conclude?"
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Section 27 "When Ye Partake of the Sacrament"

When I think about it --- that Joseph Smith thought he could correct the Bible ---

I pray for God's mercy on those who still follow that man. I'm being very sincere. I hope my sister accepted Christ before she passed away.

Elias means "one who comes before', or 'one who restores'. There have been many Elias's over the millenia. JS was spot on.

You, modify the bible every day with your teachings directly from it. You say 'the bible says that all we have to do is believe in Jesus and we will be saved'.
The bible does say that, but it also says to do many other things in order to be saved. So your modification of the bible is to ignore these other scriptures that present a much wider process to being saved than you present.

Besides everyone interprets the bible as they wish, that is modification too, and everyone does that. So don't be too hard on JS.

 

[Peter1000]

There is a big difference between finding a more accurate use of a word according to the language and customs of the original language and time and teaching a whole concept that was never in the bible in the first place.

Let me show you a scripture that has been changed to bring out a new teaching:
Colossians 1:15 (KJV)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

This is a key scripture for LDS to support that Jesus was in fact the first spirit child of God in our pre-earth existence. It is a straight-forward statement that mainline Christians cringe at, because they think this means Jesus was created and so he is not divine. That is a false assertion. Jesus as well as all humans have existed forever in the spirit and that spirit will continue to dwell in our bodies for eternity.It is the spirit inside of us that make us immortal, just like Jesus.

So now look at other translations of this same, very important scripture:
Colossians 1:15Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Son of God Is the Same as God
15 No one can see God,
but the Son is exactly like God.
He rules over everything that has been made.

This changes the whole meaning. Instead of being the firstborn of everything made, he is now the ruler of everthing that has been made. Now the confusion can really begin. Oh, did anyone add words of change meanings? Yes.
So if JS retranslated the bible per his knowledge and some words were changed and some meanings clarified, why should you or anyone be so astonished and upset with JS. It has been done hundreds of times in other translations.
Colossians 1:15New Century Version (NCV)
The Importance of Christ
15 No one can see God, but Jesus Christ is exactly like him. He ranks higher than everything that has been made.

Again, changed + added + dropped words. This one does not change the meaning too much, but again, it drops the most important word of the scripture (firstborn) and replaces it with Jesus (ranks higher) than everything that has been made. Kind of hides the meaning but does not obliterate it like the (NCV). Again why should you be astonished and upset that JS could do a retranslation of the bible and change some wording from the original so as to clarify the meaning, when it has been done hundreds of times in other translations.
Colossians 1:15The Voice (VOICE)
15 He is the exact image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creation, the eternal.

OOPS, changed words and added words (the eternal). But the meaning is still in tact, because Jesus' spirit is eternal, but he was still the firstborn spirit of every creature. Does this make Jesus a creation? No, his spirit is an eternal entity, no beginning, not end, not created.

This is a good scripture to study, and as you see, JS was certainly not the only translator to try to make the bible more clear. So give him as much room as you give other translators, or you are being dishonest.

 

[Peter1000]

The best source is the original language. Do you know Greek or Hebrew? Joseph Smith showed his inability to translate correctly and just made things up in his JST. That only shows he cannot be trusted and is not a prophet of God. And yet you still follow his brand of religion...

Who would you choose to translate the bible from Greek to English.
1) a greek and english scholar?

2) a prophet of God that does not know Greek? (Assuming the man is a prophet)

 

[mmksparbud]

This has been explained to you before---

first born
Transliteration: prototokos
Short Definition: first-born
Definition: first-born, eldest.
PROTOTOKOS ("Firstborn")

The word under consideration is “prototokos.” It is made up of two words, “protos,” meaning first,(2) and “tokos” from “tikto,” “to give birth.”(3). There is little evidence that the word “prototokos” was used extensively before the time of the Septuagint.(4) Its basic meaning is the first one born, the first born child. However, it must be examined in its context to determine its true meaning.
“New Testament Usage”
In the New Testament we find the word “prototokos” used a total of eight times. Six of these instances are in the singular and refer to the Lord Christ, two are in the plural form.(8) These passages are: Luke 2:7, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15 and 1:18, Hebrews 1:6, 11:28, 12:23, and Revelation 1:5. The first passage, Luke 2:7 of the Christmas narrative, refers to the basic meaning of the word as it is used in the genealogy lists of the Old Testament. The other references, however, take on a far greater meaning.

In the New Testament usage, the emphasis is placed not on the “tokos” but instead upon the “protos.” The word stresses superiority and priority rather than origin or birth. This can be seen as early as the LXX usage, where it has been pointed out that Israel, as God’s first-born, certainly can not be seen as the first creation of God, but rather His special choice and pre-eminent people. The Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon says, “This expression...is also used in some instances where it is uncertain whether the force of the element “-tokos” is still felt at all...Col. 1:15.”(9)

In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as “the first-born among many brethren.” These brethren are, of course, the glorified Christians. Here the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over “the brethren” is acknowledged, as well as His leadership in their salvation. “As the brethren of Christ, all Christians will share his destiny (c.f. Heb. 2:10-17), and Christ is the pre-eminent Son among the sons of God (c.f. 1:3).”(10) In Hebrews 1:6 we read, “And when He again brings the first-born into the world”, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” Here the idea of pre-eminence is obvious, as all of God’s angels are instructed to worship Him, a privilege rightly reserved only for God (Luke 4:8). The term “prototokos” is used here as a title, and no idea of birth or origin is seen.

In both Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, Christ Jesus is called the first-born of the dead (or “from” the dead). These would refer especially to the leadership of Christ in bringing about the resurrection of the dead and inauguration of a new, eternal life. Some think that Colossians 1:15-20 is an ancient Christian hymn, and the Greek words “prototokos” and “proteouon” are a play on sound.(11)

The greatest amount of discussion and exegesis has centered around Paul’s use of “prototokos pases ktiseos” of Christ in Colossians 1:15. The early Church Fathers argued it, and modern scholars have spent more time discussing this use than all seven other instances combined.
“Contextual Considerations”
The context of Colossians 1:15, and the phrase in which we encounter “prototokos” should weigh heavily in our interpretation of the word. Many would disagree with the interpretation and above definition due to the connection of “prototokos” with “pases ktiseos.”

These would interpret this phrase as being a partitive genitive, making the “prototokos” a part of creation, a created thing, rather than superior over all things. It is admitted that this could be construed as a partitive genitive, but “this is excluded by the context, which sharply distinguishes between the Son and “ta panta,” and for this idea Paul would probably have used “protoktistos.””(18) The well-known scholar, A. T. Robertson, wrote:

The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation (“pases ktiseos”...) It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of “protos” that is used ... Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing Him before “all creation” (angels and men) ... Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as “eikon” (Image) and to the universe as “prototokos” (First-born).(19)

It does sound strange to the mind accustomed to reading Paul to imagine him thinking of the One Whom he called “kurios,” Lord, as a creature - a mere creation. For no matter how exalted or glorified a creature might be, it is still as far removed from the glory of God Almighty as can be imagined.

One of the most telling contextual clues to Paul’s use of “prototokos” is the ascription of the creation of all things to Christ in the following two verses. The phrase used in these verse, “ta panta,” is quite revealing. Paul used this term as a synonym for the universe and all it contains. It has been well said, “In Him “ta panta” were created. From this it follows that the Son cannot be a creature, for creation is exhausted by the “all things” which were created in Him.”(20)

Hence it is seen that the great majority of modern scholarship sees “prototokos” in the New Testament pointing to the superiority of the Christ above and over all creation. This is not only the background of the word from the Old Testament, but it is also demanded by the contexts in which it is found. Only Colossians 1:15 could be seen to allow any other kind of interpretation whatsoever, and this passage safeguards itself through the immediate context, by ascribing to the “prototokos” all creation.
PROTOTOKOS ("Firstborn")

 

[mmksparbud]

Who would you choose to translate the bible from Greek to English.
1) a greek and english scholar?

2) a prophet of God that does not know Greek? (Assuming the man is a prophet)

I don't know about BigDaddy---but I'll take the Greek scholars---prophets were not used as translators. They would translate a word or sentence, but not books. As in Daniel translating the writing on the wall. The scribes and scholars did translations. There is no instance of God using a prophet to translate a book. God spoke to the prophet in his own language and the prophet wrote it down in his own language. No interpreter was needed. A prophet would sometimes dictate to a scribe what to write. Translations are only needed when going from one language to another and in every case, only scholars who knew both languages were used for that. There is not one instance in the whole of the bible where God had a whole book, written in an unknown language that any prophet was required to translate by use of stones in a hat.

 

[dzheremi]

Let me show you a scripture that has been changed to bring out a new teaching:
Colossians 1:15 (KJV)
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

This is a key scripture for LDS to support that Jesus was in fact the first spirit child of God in our pre-earth existence. It is a straight-forward statement that mainline Christians cringe at

Peter, why do you make statements like this? Seriously, man? Where is your head when you're typing this stuff? It seems like you'd have us believe that the LDS wrote the KJV, instead of it being a product of the English Church. It's really easy to deflate this kind of thinking by simply asking you: If we 'mainline' Christians (read: Christians) hate it so much, then why is it in our Bibles?

Again, you impute thoughts and motivations and the like onto people you clearly know nothing about, and then proceed from there to destroy an argument that came entirely from you -- no 'mainline' (mainstream) Christian.

because they think this means Jesus was created and so he is not divine. That is a false assertion.

Again, where is your proof that this is what any mainstream Christian believes? All the ancient commentaries and homilies on Colossians that I have been able to find show that this is precisely what men like our father St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) preached against, and that certainly wasn't because they believed in or taught Mormonism instead.

You have an incredibly skewed view of Christianity and its history (including its scriptures), which appears to be informed by nothing more than your own presuppositions about what must've happened and why, and the result is an argument that has nothing to do with reality, either past or present.

So now look at other translations of this same, very important scripture:
Colossians 1:15Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Son of God Is the Same as God
15 No one can see God,
but the Son is exactly like God.
He rules over everything that has been made.

This changes the whole meaning. Instead of being the firstborn of everything made, he is now the ruler of everthing that has been made. Now the confusion can really begin. Oh, did anyone add words of change meanings? Yes.
So if JS retranslated the bible per his knowledge and some words were changed and some meanings clarified, why should you or anyone be so astonished and upset with JS. It has been done hundreds of times in other translations.
Colossians 1:15New Century Version (NCV)
The Importance of Christ
15 No one can see God, but Jesus Christ is exactly like him. He ranks higher than everything that has been made.

Again, changed + added + dropped words. This one does not change the meaning too much, but again, it drops the most important word of the scripture (firstborn) and replaces it with Jesus (ranks higher) than everything that has been made. Kind of hides the meaning but does not obliterate it like the (NCV). Again why should you be astonished and upset that JS could do a retranslation of the bible and change some wording from the original so as to clarify the meaning, when it has been done hundreds of times in other translations.
Colossians 1:15The Voice (VOICE)
15 He is the exact image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creation, the eternal.

OOPS, changed words and added words (the eternal). But the meaning is still in tact, because Jesus' spirit is eternal, but he was still the firstborn spirit of every creature. Does this make Jesus a creation? No, his spirit is an eternal entity, no beginning, not end, not created.

This is a good scripture to study, and as you see, JS was certainly not the only translator to try to make the bible more clear. So give him as much room as you give other translators, or you are being dishonest.

I've never heard of any of these translations. Do you have anything more mainstream to present, like maybe from a version that is older than the 1990s or 2000s and used by established, known churches with historical roots? Looking around, it appears that two of the three (the ERV and NCV) are rooted in versions of the Bible specifically produced for deaf people to read and understand (since deaf people have trouble reading standard English since their first language is sign language, not standard spoken English), so it makes sense that they would perhaps be worded differently due to being meant for a specialized audience whose native language operates differently than Standard English.

I can't make heads nor tails of what the Voice translation is about, but from the page on Biblegateway that talks about it, it seems they are going for some kind of artistic rendering of text. They say: "The Voice Bible is a different sort of translation. It combines the relative strengths of scholars who are experts in the original languages and modern writers, musicians, and poets who are skilled in their use of English, our target language. Our idea was to set up a collaborative process whereby scholars and writers could work together to create a translation that was faithful and accurate to the original languages while at the same time beautiful and readable to an English-speaking audience."

Okay then.

I'm not aware of which churches actually use any of these. The major forms of the Bible text are ones like the KJV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, NIV, NAB, etc. as used by Catholics (NAB, D-R, etc.), Protestants (KJV, NKJV, NIV), and Orthodox (e.g., in my own church we use NKJV in English; the EO also have their OSB, though I don't know if that is actually read from in church or not). These other more specialized and obscure versions aren't very good sources to make this point, since most people will not be familiar with them to begin with.

 

[fatboys]

Peter, why do you make statements like this? Seriously, man? Where is your head when you're typing this stuff? It seems like you'd have us believe that the LDS wrote the KJV, instead of it being a product of the English Church. It's really easy to deflate this kind of thinking by simply asking you: If we 'mainline' Christians (read: Christians) hate it so much, then why is it in our Bibles?

Again, you impute thoughts and motivations and the like onto people you clearly know nothing about, and then proceed from there to destroy an argument that came entirely from you -- no 'mainline' (mainstream) Christian.



Again, where is your proof that this is what any mainstream Christian believes? All the ancient commentaries and homilies on Colossians that I have been able to find show that this is precisely what men like our father St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) preached against, and that certainly wasn't because they believed in or taught Mormonism instead.

You have an incredibly skewed view of Christianity and its history (including its scriptures), which appears to be informed by nothing more than your own presuppositions about what must've happened and why, and the result is an argument that has nothing to do with reality, either past or present.



I've never heard of any of these translations. Do you have anything more mainstream to present, like maybe from a version that is older than the 1990s or 2000s and used by established, known churches with historical roots? Looking around, it appears that two of the three (the ERV and NCV) are rooted in versions of the Bible specifically produced for deaf people to read and understand (since deaf people have trouble reading standard English since their first language is sign language, not standard spoken English), so it makes sense that they would perhaps be worded differently due to being meant for a specialized audience whose native language operates differently than Standard English.

I can't make heads nor tails of what the Voice translation is about, but from the page on Biblegateway that talks about it, it seems they are going for some kind of artistic rendering of text. They say: "The Voice Bible is a different sort of translation. It combines the relative strengths of scholars who are experts in the original languages and modern writers, musicians, and poets who are skilled in their use of English, our target language. Our idea was to set up a collaborative process whereby scholars and writers could work together to create a translation that was faithful and accurate to the original languages while at the same time beautiful and readable to an English-speaking audience."

Okay then.

I'm not aware of which churches actually use any of these. The major forms of the Bible text are ones like the KJV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, NIV, NAB, etc. as used by Catholics (NAB, D-R, etc.), Protestants (KJV, NKJV, NIV), and Orthodox (e.g., in my own church we use NKJV in English; the EO also have their OSB, though I don't know if that is actually read from in church or not). These other more specialized and obscure versions aren't very good sources to make this point, since most people will not be familiar with them to begin with.

What about all the important doctrines that were not consistent and were left out?

 

[mmksparbud]

What about all the important doctrines that were not consistent and were left out?

This makes no sense. What is it you are trying to say here? What doctrines who were left out of what??? Can you give a little more info, please.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I don't know about BigDaddy---but I'll take the Greek scholars---prophets were not used as translators. They would translate a word or sentence, but not books. As in Daniel translating the writing on the wall. The scribes and scholars did translations. There is no instance of God using a prophet to translate a book. God spoke to the prophet in his own language and the prophet wrote it down in his own language. No interpreter was needed. A prophet would sometimes dictate to a scribe what to write. Translations are only needed when going from one language to another and in every case, only scholars who knew both languages were used for that. There is not one instance in the whole of the bible where God had a whole book, written in an unknown language that any prophet was required to translate by use of stones in a hat.

I'd take those scholars, too. What Peter apparently doesn't realize is that the inspired words were already given and written down. There is no need for a "prophet" to translate.

As with Joseph Smith, any "prophet" who tries to alter what has already been given to us will be scrutinized. The JST translation attempt only shows he was no prophet.

 

[Peter1000]

This makes no sense. What is it you are trying to say here? What doctrines who were left out of what??? Can you give a little more info, please.

Oh, lets see, how is one saved in the KOG?