LDS What is the basis of changes to the BoM?

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Introduction

3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon



In this study we will show that there have been at least 3,913 changes made in the Book of Mormon from the time it was first published in 1830.

In making this study we obtained photocopies of an original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon from the University of Utah Library. This copy was donated to the library by the Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe.

After comparing the first edition of the Book of Mormon with the 1964 edition we marked the changes on the photocopies of the 1830 edition. Therefore, the text is an exact photographic reproduction of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, and the handwriting shows the changes that would have to be made in the text to bring it into conformity with the 1964 edition. We have not tried to show capitalization or punctuation changes in this study.

(In 1981 the LDS Church published a new edition of the Book of Mormon, making a number of additional changes in the text. They also reset the type thus changing the page numbers from the previous editions.)

It is very interesting to note that the Mormon Historian Joseph Fielding Smith has claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He was reported as saying the following at the fall conference of 1961:Introduction to 3,913 Changes
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DW1980
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

It was textual criticism that exposed the less than one percent of additions like the I John trinity text. That is how we know it is accurate.

As for differences in translations, it relates to the guiding principles of different schools or types of translation.

Translations by "cults" like JW's and other Arians are known not to be orthodox in theology.

Among orthodox translations of the Bible, no Major Doctrine has been changed.

In fact, the American Bible Society years ago published a textual commentary on the NT.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
It was textual criticism that exposed the less than one percent of additions like the I John trinity text. That is how we know it is accurate.

As for differences in translations, it relates to the guiding principles of different schools or types of translation. .
So... the fact that the Bible changes is okay with you because it's "less than <1%"? How about shifting entire books out of cannon?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Johannine Comma
The Johannine comma, as it is called, is a sequence of extra words in 1 John 5:7-8 which appear in some early printed Greek texts (notably those of Erasmus), later versions of the Latin Vulgate, and in the King James Version of the Bible. See these words below in italics in the KJV and the same verse from the newer ESV.

  • "For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." -1 John 5:7-8, KJV

  • "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." -1 John 5:7-8, ESV
Pre-16th century Greek manuscripts and translations
"These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts." ^1

"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript." (Ibid.)

Greek fathers
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215." (Ibid.)

The Erasmian promise
"Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." (Bruce Metzger)

However, on pg 291 (n2) of the (new) 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger writes:

"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum", Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980)," pp 381-9.

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger's view on Erasmus' promise "has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."

In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:

"I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus' Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Erasmus (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and impiety. 'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.'

"From this passage you can see that Erasmus does notchallenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneumfigured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

"In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject" (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard, p. 383).
https://www.theopedia.com/johannine-comma
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,566
13,725
✟430,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Actually, the Bible has changes over time, whether you want to talk different translations/takes, or things like the Johannine Comma. And then there's issues of cannons changing over time.

On what basis do you accept these changes?

Different translations are different translations. Not sure what's supposed to be "accepted" or not about that, given that obviously not every church accepts every translation purely because it's out there.

The Johannine Comma was originally found in Latin manuscripts dating from the 9th century, and worked its way into Greek manuscripts starting in the 15th, and hence is completely absent from the Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, etc. versions of any era. So it is in large part not accepted, and to extent that it is found it is a clue that whichever translation you are working with uses Latin and/or post-15th century Greek manuscripts as its base.

Canons are a matter of...well, canon, and the canon has proved to be remarkably consistent in its basic outline, so I hardly think it is fit to really think of it as "changed" as opposed to "received" (see below). The standard 27-book NT laid down by our common father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic stands today, as it is shared by all major Christian traditions. And there has always been variation overall in what is accepted into the canon and how it is divided based on how any one particular group first received the Bible. This is why there is a different numbering of the Psalms between East and West, some traditions include the Prayer of Manasseh (as the Old Slavonic, Ethiopian, and Armenian Bibles do), while others do not, etc.

It is important to note that none of this applies to the BOM, as there are no manuscripts from which the BOM translators may work (can't seem to find the golden plates...), and no variant traditions concerning its reception, and hence no way to motivate changes to the 'canon' or the text itself.

So I think the OP has a good question. It's one I'd like to see an answer to without deflections about the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
An example of something in the BOM that needs correction is,

17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.Ether 2
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Concerning Canon,

Jewish historian Josephus, he states this:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.i

We see that around 100 AD Josephus plainly states the contents of the Old Testament was written between the time of Moses and the days of Artaxerxes I (king of Persia from 465 to 424 BC).Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings


The extra books that Catholics have are called deuterocanonical (which are not part of the Hebrew canon ) which are not on par with the Jewish Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures.

“[Jesus] said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ ”

- Luke 24:44

4. The Exact Extent Of The Hebrew Scripture Is Given

Finally, Jesus declared the extent of the Old Testament. He said to the religious leaders of His day.

So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar (Matthew 23:35).

This statement clearly defined what Jesus viewed as the Old Testament canon-the same Old Testament as we have in the Protestant English Bible. Abel was the first person murdered that the Scripture records.

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him (Genesis 4:8).

Zechariah Was The Last Canonical Prophet Murdered
Zechariah was the last person murdered in the Old Testament according to the way the Jews listed the books. It says of his death.

Then the spirit of God took possession of Zechariah son of the priest Jehoiada; he stood above the people and said to them, "Thus says God: Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has also forsaken you." But they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD (2 Chronicles 24:20,21).

The Zechariah that Jesus referred to is the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:21. Second Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew order. However Zechariah was not the last prophet to be martyred chronologically. In this verse Jesus refers to the first section of the Hebrew canon, the Law, and the last section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings. By implication He would also have accepted the second section, the Prophets. Therefore we have His testimony to the threefold division to the Hebrew Scriptures as well as its content.Did the New Testament Recognize a Completed Old Testament Canon of Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Orthodox Churches accept Translations based on the qualifications of the Translators and if those Translators are orthodox in Theology.

Modern translations were done by Committees, even a recent revision of a Catholic Bible had protestant scholars involved.

"The revised text was the work of 15 Christian scholars, one-third of them Protestant and the rest Catholic, working individually and in 50 committee meetings over the last six years."U.S. CATHOLIC BIBLE AVOIDS USING 'MAN'
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟220,019.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the Bible has changes over time, whether you want to talk different translations/takes, or things like the Johannine Comma. And then there's issues of cannons changing over time.

On what basis do you accept these changes?
Off topic. Please stop with the lds shell game.
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟220,019.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So... the fact that the Bible changes is okay with you because it's "less than <1%"? How about shifting entire books out of cannon?
Are you doing your best to answer the question, as you told us you do in another thread, or are you trying to deflect?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Golden Plates ---


OBTAINING THE PLATES
As with much of LDS history, Smith’s retrieval of the gold plates is a story of incredible drama. Several LDS historians and Church manuals have repeated the story given by Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of the Mormon prophet.1 In her account, she says that her son took the plates from their secret place and, “wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.” After “traveling some distance,” he “came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed.”2She said her son was attacked twice more, and since there is no record of Smith rendering his assailants unconscious or incapacitated, we must assume he outran them for at least a portion of the distance necessary to reach the Smith home three miles away. We must also assume that he did all this with a slight limp that he received from a childhood surgery.

THE WEIGHT OF THE GOLD PLATES
There is no uniform consensus as to the size or weight of the plates Joseph Smith claimed to have in his possession. Contemporaries of Smith gave varying dimensions for the plates, as well as a wide range of estimated weights. Some say the plates weighed as much as sixty pounds, while others, like Joseph Smith’s father, said the plates weighed as little as thirty pounds.

Smith claimed the record he received from the angel was “six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin.” He also said the “volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed.”3 Given these dimensions, we can conclude that the plates were one-sixth of a cubic foot. Since gold weighs 1,204 pounds per cubic foot, we can agree with LDS Apostle John Widtsoe who said, “If the gold were pure, [the plates] would weigh two hundred pounds, which would be a heavy weight for a man to carry, even though he were of the athletic type of Joseph Smith.”4 Though several illustrations of the plates depict what looks like a virtual compressed set of metal sheets, Mormons often insist that handmade gold plates would not lay perfectly flat, thus allowing for air gaps between the leaves, making them much lighter. This argument ignores the fact that gold, while an extremely dense metal, is also very soft. The very weight of the plates themselves would eliminate any air gaps, thus making the plates a virtual block of gold.

Mormons are compelled to offer a solution that responds to the weight problem as well as the ductility problem. The plates must be light enough for a man like Smith to carry and strong enough to prevent any engravings on them from being distorted as they are handed down from generation to generation. Widtsoe, fully aware that solid gold plates presented a problem, offered the following theory:

For the purpose of record keeping, plates made of gold mixed with a certain amount of copper would be better, for such plates would be firmer, more durable and generally more suitable for the work in hand. If the plates were made of eight karat gold, which is gold frequently used in present-day jewelry, and allowing a 10 percent space between the leaves, the total weight of the plates would not be above one hundred and seventeen pounds—a weight easily carried by aman as strong as was Joseph Smith.5

Is this theory plausible? As a longtime volunteer at the Utah Lighthouse Book Store in Salt Lake City, I have watched many visitors attempt to lift a replica set of plates that are the same dimensions given by Joseph Smith (6x8x6). Made of lead, the replica weighs 118.3 pounds, or a little over a pound more than the weight suggested by Widtsoe. Most are unable to even budge the replica. On the second try, some do lift the plates, but only barely off its pedestal. Everyone who attempts to lift the replica admits it is impossible to carry such a weight for a distance of three miles, much less run at top speed to avoid thieves wanting to steal them.

Aside: Try taking your body weight in extra pounds and running Three Miles while others are trying to tackle you. In the Military, I carried around 90 Lbs on the battlefield and there was no way I would be able to run three miles when I was 18 --- and, yes, I did work on farms and construction year round while growing up.

"Carrying weight in your pack isn’t free of cost, though. Each 1% of your body weight carried in your pack makes you 6 seconds slower per mile. So, if you weigh 150 pounds, each 1.5 pounds of weight in your pack slows you by 6 seconds per mile. For a 150-pound hiker, on an extended trip, cutting your pack weight down from 40 to 30 pounds saves you 40 seconds per mile." 5 Military Rucking Rules Every Backpacker Should Know
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,819
10,795
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟833,852.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The changes in the Bible have come about because of changes in the language. Tyndall translated the Bible into English, and the KJV is largely based on his translation. Successive translations have been merely to update the meanings of words as they have changed through the centuries since 1611. The 1611 KJV was compiled by a large committee of Bible scholars, including Greek and Hebrew scholars to ensure that what was translated was correct according to the original manuscripts. Sure, there were a few errors, but not in the doctrinal content. The errors were more typographical and minor than anything else. A lot of the misinterpretation of the KJV is because of misunderstandings in the meaning of words, as compared to modern usage. For instance "conversation" did not mean "chatting" in 1611. It meant "manner of life". Another one is the word "baptize", which is a mistranslation of the the Greek word "βάπτισμα" which means "immerse". Modern interpretations have included "sprinkle", and "pour" which are not the meanings of the actual Greek word, but have been interpreted that way to suit traditional baptism theology.

But I do suspect that the changes in the Book of Mormon are changes in content and doctrine, and that is a significant difference. It shows that what the original Mormons believed in doctrine has changed since the early 19th Century, while the basic doctrines of the Bible have not changed at all.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Ok, I answered your questions, now get back to the OP questions and put this rabbit hole aside. You are welcome to start separate threads on each issue you raised.
Actually, I can't. CF relegates me and other "nonChristians" as 2nd class citizen, forbidden to start threads in this forum or discuss things in theology sections.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DW1980
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums