LDS Why is the word "Bible" in the BoM?

[Anto9us]

Rather, they are both viewed as scripture and stand together, not one above the other.

but...

1 Nephi 13:28
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God..

Right there you have BOM "standing above the other" - standing ABOVE THE BIBLE in that BOM alleges that many plain and precious things have been TAKEN AWAY from the Bible - that is not equality, that is BOM standing above the Bible!

 

[Anto9us]

I really think that we all KNOW what TRANSLATION is.

A human being knows at least two different languages. He or she looks at a SOURCE DOCUMENT in one language that he or she KNOWS, and writes out the same thoughts in the other language that he or she knows.

But to look through 'magic glasses' at a text in a language one doesn't even know, and "see" the words in English (albeit out-of-date English for the time) - that is not "translation" -- that is MUMBO-JUMBO, that is HOCUS-POCUS

 

[twin.spin]

but...

1 Nephi 13:28
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God..

Right there you have BOM "standing above the other" - standing ABOVE THE BIBLE in that BOM alleges that many plain and precious things have been TAKEN AWAY from the Bible - that is not equality, that is BOM standing above the Bible!

When the BoM … not the Bible … according to JS is " the most correct of any book on earth . . .

When the BoM … not the Bible … according to JS "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Joseph Smith, Introduction to the Book of Mormon)

then as the saying goes … when it walks like duck, quacks like a duck …

 

[Anto9us]

it BE a duck!

 

[Jane_Doe]

I really think that we all KNOW what TRANSLATION is.

A human being knows at least two different languages. He or she looks at a SOURCE DOCUMENT in one language that he or she KNOWS, and writes out the same thoughts in the other language that he or she knows.

But to look through 'magic glasses' at a text in a language one doesn't even know, and "see" the words in English (albeit out-of-date English for the time) - that is not "translation" -- that is MUMBO-JUMBO, that is HOCUS-POCUS

This post is incredibly disrespectful. If you're honestly interested in learning and respecting, here's a link: Book of Mormon Translation

but...

1 Nephi 13:28
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God..

Right there you have BOM "standing above the other" - standing ABOVE THE BIBLE in that BOM alleges that many plain and precious things have been TAKEN AWAY from the Bible - that is not equality, that is BOM standing above the Bible!

No.

 

[Anto9us]

I read the link. Outlandish. THAT was the process? Looking at a seer-stone/glasses inside of a hat?
My GOD!

 

[TuxAme]

Ummmm could it be that it was translated from one langue to another and the words which were chosen were done so that the people reading it would comprehend it.

And another point is that this is a prophecy about something that would come to pass, in the future. After the Nephites were long gone and the Gentiles took possession of the land, they brought with them a book they called a Bible.

Then why wouldn't Mormons use a translation of the Bible that uses the word "Bible" instead of "scripture"? But it's only in the BoM, and that's what makes me suspicious. You'd think if the purpose was to increase its readability, a similar attempt would be made to make the book they're talking about in the BoM (the Bible) more comprehendible.

 

[TuxAme]

Here's another thing. I'm reading it now, and I'm about halfway through 1 Nephi. I can't say I'm "enjoying" how explicit it is about Jesus. It uses John the Baptist's own words concerning the Lamb of God (not to mention it refers to him as the "voice of one crying in the wilderness"), how he baptizes Jesus, and talks (vaguely) about His ministry- it even calls Jesus the Son of God.

DISCLAIMER:

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm studying the BoM for several reasons: (1) I'm opening myself up to the possibility that I'm wrong in my current faith (practicing a little humility here), (2) I want to be on equal footing with Mormon missionaries, who know their own faith and Catholic and Protestant beliefs, to an extent, and (3) for personal interest. But I'm only halfway through the first book and can't swallow any of it. It's already such a deviation from the way the Bible describes God to "behave" at this point in time. Where can it go from here?

 

[tampasteve]

Then why wouldn't Mormons use a translation of the Bible that uses the word "Bible" instead of "scripture"? But it's only in the BoM, and that's what makes me suspicious.

Yes, as noted it only lends to two conclusions:
The BOM is false and that is a anachronism that cannot be reconciled
or
The BOM was in fact translated by a miracle and the word "Bible" is what was shown to JS so that is why he used it.

Belief in the LDS mythology* requires looking at more than this use of a word. If one can accept the story as told and believes in the prophet then the answer to why things are written as they are falls in line. If it does not, then it is a major stumbling block to believing the rest.

You'd think if the purpose was to increase its readability, a similar attempt would be made to make the book they're talking about in the BoM (the Bible) more comprehendible.

Ironically to me the lack or readability on certain parts of the BOM makes the translation myth* more believable. The Bible is not changed because the LDS church believes the KJV to be the most reliable translation, IIRC. But personally I do not believe in the LDS mythology as several major parts are irreconcilable to me, among other reasons.


*Note:
"myth" and "mythology" are not being used to denigrate the LDS church, they are being used as a term to explain a belief system. I would use the terms talking about any religion, including other Christianities in this manner.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Here's another thing. I'm reading it now, and I'm about halfway through 1 Nephi. I can't say I'm "enjoying" how explicit it is about Jesus. It uses John the Baptist's own words concerning the Lamb of God (not to mention it refers to him as the "voice of one crying in the wilderness"), how he baptizes Jesus, and talks (vaguely) about His ministry- it even calls Jesus the Son of God.

DISCLAIMER:

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm studying the BoM for several reasons: (1) I'm opening myself up to the possibility that I'm wrong in my current faith (practicing a little humility here), (2) I want to be on equal footing with Mormon missionaries, who know their own faith and Catholic and Protestant beliefs, to an extent, and (3) for personal interest. But I'm only halfway through the first book and can't swallow any of it. It's already such a deviation from the way the Bible describes God to "behave" at this point in time. Where can it go from here?

I mega appreciate your efforts to be respectful and try to genuinely understand other people's faith. What you are doing is truly Christ-Like.

I will readily admit the Book of Mormon can be hard to get through due to the old language and not simple story line. An easier place to start is actually the book Third Nephi, chapter 11. That's the start of Christ's visit and the climax of everything.

Alternatively, if you're simply interested in learning basic LDS beliefs, this book Gospel Principles is a good place to start. It's our "Mormonism 101" Sunday School manual, and specifically designed to be easy to read, with lots of references from all scriptures.



On a slightly different note, LDS missionaries typically are somewhat familiar with Catholic beliefs from a distance. Like just a tiny-tiny bit. They aren't experts by any remote imaging. That why when I wanted to know more about Catholic beliefs (just because I'm an religious nerd) I spent years going to Masses, reading CCC, and chatting with actual Catholic folks-- I wanted to get things straight from the horse's mouth so I could best understand and love the Catholic people. It was a rewarding experience.

Then why wouldn't Mormons use a translation of the Bible that uses the word "Bible" instead of "scripture"? But it's only in the BoM, and that's what makes me suspicious. You'd think if the purpose was to increase its readability, a similar attempt would be made to make the book they're talking about in the BoM (the Bible) more comprehendible.

I'm admittedly a little confused by your question here. The BoM's purpose is not to increase readability or to be the Bible. So I'm not really sure what you're asking here. The BoM's purpose is to bring men unto Christ*, hence the super heavy focus on Christ.

*I'm speaking from the LDS perspective here and respectfully acknowledge that other folks have other perspectives.

 

[TuxAme]

I'm admittedly a little confused by your question here. The BoM's purpose is not to increase readability or to be the Bible. So I'm not really sure what you're asking here. The BoM's purpose is to bring men unto Christ*, hence the super heavy focus on Christ.

*I'm speaking from the LDS perspective here and respectfully acknowledge that other folks have other perspectives.

Another poster suggested that the word Bible was used to help people understand better. That post of mine was in response to them (I was assuming what they said was true for the sake of the argument).

 

[Jane_Doe]

Another poster suggested that the word Bible was used to help people understand better. That post of mine was in response to them (I was assuming what they said was true for the sake of the argument).

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

For me, as an LDS person, I often hear the jest of "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" statement from other people, particularly Sola Scriptura believers. Just sharing my experience.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Then why wouldn't Mormons use a translation of the Bible that uses the word "Bible" instead of "scripture"? But it's only in the BoM, and that's what makes me suspicious. You'd think if the purpose was to increase its readability, a similar attempt would be made to make the book they're talking about in the BoM (the Bible) more comprehendible.

?

 

[Cormac Shea]

Wow. All of these replies and I don't see anything close to the basic answer. Well, here it is:

The word "Bible" does NOT appear in the Book of Mormon. The word was written into the translation of the Book of Mormon. Like almost every other word in the translation, "Bible" is a modern English word. The entire point was to use a lexicon that is contemporary and therefore in many cases, newer than the times that either the BOM nor Bible took place.

We do not know what word is used in the original Book of Mormon, and it may have been a very different word, at least from the perspective of the original writers. It may have been a phrase. But, knowing what it really is, why would a translator not use the word we use today, as opposed to something like "a great book containing the words of the Lord" or something like that? Which it my have been.

I hope I have reconcerted you a bit. Thank you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

? The Bible is Truth and entirely forbids and contradicts the bom. It (the bom) is not even to be read nor studied nor believed.

 

[dzheremi]

The word "Bible" does NOT appear in the Book of Mormon. The word was written into the translation of the Book of Mormon.

There is no 'original language' of the Book of Mormon until or unless proven otherwise (which has not happened yet, and there's no reason to believe it will happen in the future, either), so any idea of its translation rests upon believing the BOM narrative, which nobody who is not already Mormon is going to do.

Whereas if there is no translation to begin with, just like how there's no non-English original language, because all of it is made up in the first place, the it doesn't matter what you can say about it. It's just a lie.

 

[Anto9us]

all of it is made up in the first place,

agreed.

 

[Anto9us]

I think, Cormac, that you are a day late and a dollar short here.

This thread is just 3 pages, but there have been numerous other multi-page threads in the same vein and no other Mormon has posted that "the word Bible is not in BOM"

 

[Anto9us]

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...in-the-bc-era-which-are-out-of-place.8064703/

a nine-page older thread that addressed how terms that could only be known to one acquainted with KJV were -- in BOM -- put in the mouths of (allegedly) very ancient people

Welcome to CF, Cormac, but as far as this late move to say BOM does not include the word 'Bible" -- the "jest" that Jane mentions prove it IS IN THERE; so -- as George Kennedy once said to Paul Newman:

"Stay down. You're beat."

 

[Anto9us]

For me, as an LDS person, I often hear the jest of "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" statement from other people

And that phrase, "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" --

did it not come from the book of Mormon ?