LDS Freedom Forum

This came up on another thread so I wanted to bring it out in the open in it's own thread.

These new translation of the Bible are, IMO, evil tools of the devil. The most notorious one at the moment is the NIV or New International Version.

As so often the case, prophesies can be fulfilled many times through out history and I believe the NIV fulfills prophesy yet again. And honestly it's both faith promoting and chilling all at the same time.

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

Nephi prophesies that the writings, as given to the original Apostles, were the pure word of God.

But after the formation of the great and abominable church, which officially formed @325AD, the scripture was not just changed, but at this time the scriptures was completely thrown out.

Remember at this time the Jews were record keepers. That was their responsibility. All the writings of the prophets were kept and maintained.

However, in 325AD, one of the first things this new church did was decide what was it's canon. It's authorized scripture. The newly appointed bishops and priests voted on which writings they would accept. This became the foundation for what would eventually become the modern Bible.

There were no prophets in Nicaea. No revelation given. These false priests voted based on their own opinion which scriptures they would allow the world to see and they discarded the rest.

Just for a few examples of what was thrown out,

There were actually 3 letters to Corinth, we only have two.
The book of the Wars of the Lord
The book of Jasher
The book of the acts of Solomon
The book of Samuel the seer
The book of Gad the seer
The book of Nathan the prophet
The prophecy of Ahijah
The visions of Iddo the seer
The book of Shemaiah
The book of Jehu
The sayings of the seers

And many more...

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

God sees the hearts of men. The less scripture there is, the less opportunity for someone to contradict what the priests is teaching as truth. In there hearts, these men chose their scripture for the reason of confusing people. This had the effect of giving the priests all power over the people. And it worked very well.

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.

There were many plain and precious things taken away and the removal is still going on.

Why and what?

When the gospel was restored to the earth and brought back all those truths that had been lost, it became easy to show someone, that was seeking the truth, the contrast of the Bible with the teachings of modern Christianity. It was a great missionary tool. Here's what they teach, here's what we teach, here's what the Bible says, which is right?

I was easily converted with this method as was a lot of people. 1 Cor 15:40, 1 Peter 4:6 ...that was all I need to see and four days later I was baptized.

The devil quickly answered. As soon as he could find those arrogant enough to change scripture directly, he stirred them up. The problem for the false churches is they can't reconcile their core doctrines with an honest view of the Bible.

Or even worse and an even bigger problem, and by bigger I mean the 800 lb gorilla in middle of the room or the bull in their china shop, is they can't reconcile what the don't have as their core doctrines.

Three degrees of glory so clearly shown in Corinthians.
The gospel taught to the dead as shown 1 Peter.
Baptism for the dead, prophets, apostles, etc...

The answer to this dilemma is easy, they just added those doctrines they didn't have, right??? Changed the doctrines they had wrong!?? Of course that's what they did....right?

Well not exactly. They came up with a much different solution. See...they can't teach what the Mormons teach because that would mean Joseph Smith was right and if Joseph Smith was right then their house of cards falls flat.

The solution they came up with was unique. If they can't teach what the Mormons are teaching, they'll just sterilize all that stuff out of the scriptures.

TA DA!!! The NIV Bible.

1 Cor 15 (King James Version)
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1 Cor 15 (NIV)
39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

The plain and precious truth of three degrees of glory...poof gone. Notice the removal of the formal names of the kingdoms Celestial and Terrestrial. Notice the removal of the word "glory". Paul was talking about the differing glories of the resurrection. How some are greater than others. But the evangelicals only believe in one heaven. They have rendered this powerful scripture sterile and impotent.

Spirit prison is actual place and part of the plan of salvation. And Christ taught the gospel to those spirits there. He preached to them.
Notice again how the NIV sterilizes the scripture. There is no prison and a proclamation and not preaching.

1 Peter 3 (King James Version)
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Peter 3 (NIV)
19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—

These are just a couple examples. The NIV and the other modern translations of the Bible are the fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophesy. They are not the words of God. They are the works of men who's purpose is to blind your eyes and harden your hearts against truth.

In conclusion,
The wisdom of God is greater than the cunning of the devil. The Lord changed the emphasis of missionary work to giving the investigator a spiritual experience, getting them to feel the Spirit of God. This has the effect of not relying on the convincing someone intellectually which was often the case in the past but will not be possible in the future because of changing scripture.

Great post! Those who do not have the fulness of the gospel and do not understand the doctrine of Christ create their own gospel based on the holy church of God that they see in the Bible. They change Christ's words in the Bible because they do not understand His doctrine. Virtually none of the apostate churches understand what baptisms for the dead are.

Moroni asked the apostate churches, "O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?"

The new translations of the Bible go a long way toward polluting the holy church of God and building up the kingdom of the devil. The choices in this probationary state are becoming clearer and clearer.

I still think that honest Christians can come into Christ with one of these bibles.

Anyways, these re translations have taken things out of the bible. In Brazil, the revised and corrected version that almost all evangelicals use has a couple important parts that were straight up removed.
Interesting enough, every place that I found that they removed something, it's a scripture that proves that Jesus Christ is Jehovah and that he is the creator of the world. They didn't omit the entire verse, but the wording is changed so that it seems to be talking about God the father. In one scripture it takes out the Phrase" the son of God" when talking about how and who created the world.

How ironic it is that these Christians refuse to believe that precious things were removed from the bible in the past, while in our very day precious things are being taken from the bible by the very people who say the Bible is Holy and never had anything taken from it!

So does that make the KJV (which was translated from Greek and Hebrew) a tool of the devil too? But we already knew it was only as correct as it was translated. While there may be some changes in these new modern versions for worse, there maybe some improvements.

The translation of those verses is more accurate. Many modern Bibles are more accurate than the King James. 1 Corinthians 15 isn't talking about the three degrees of glory, it's talking about heavenly verses earthly bodies. The names Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial (made up) were what Joseph referred to those kingdoms as. Those names are unique to the restoration.

The Greek words are epouranios (above the sky or celestial) and epigeios (worldly or physical) and chapter 15 is distinguishing between the two. A third degree isn't even mentioned. The glories of the sun, moon, and stars are contrasted.

The doctrine of the degrees of glory simply uses the same comparisons, and borrows some of the same language. I read from several different translations depending on what my purpose is. I like the ESV and RSV for accuracy of text and the NASB for a good modern approximation of the text. The King James is beautiful and poetic in many respects but it has serious flaws and certain parts are impossible to read because the language is so ancient. It's a VERY old translation and we have much more access to manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents to render better translations of the text.

The King James version has this verse in 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

It's commonly used as proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it doesn't appear in modern translations. Try looking up that verse in the NIV or the NASB, it's gone, do you know why?

First, note 1 John 5:7. As given in the text of the King James Bible, this verse reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” On the surface, this verse seems to clearly teach the Trinity. However, there is one problem with that: this verse was never in any of the inspired Greek manuscripts. That it originated as a monkish insertion into the Latin text is almost universally admitted by Bible scholars! The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, published by Abingdon Press, explains that during the fourth century controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded—first in Spain around 380ad, and then taken up in the Vulgate, the official Roman Catholic version written in Latin (p. 939). Bullinger’s Companion Bible explains in its footnote on the text of 1 John 5:7, “The words are not found in any Gr. MS. [Greek manuscripts] before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text.” The New Bible Commentary: Revised simply states in its comment on that text that “the words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV even from its margins” (p. 1269). Clearly the early Trinitarian teachers of the Catholic Church were at such a loss to find any Biblical substantiation for their teaching that they resorted to simply adding words to the text!
~ From: Is God Really a Trinity? By John H. Ogwyn

So the King James has an erroneous verse in it that is deceiving people about the true nature of God while the NASB eliminates it so it no longer confuses people.

There's no perfect translation of the Bible. New Translations are not "tools of the Devil" that's not a true statement. Alternate translations have been quoted in General Conference from time to time as well.

As close to the source as possible is best. Copies of copies always lose weight.

I am not sure if calling them evil is helpful, but definitely that much more removed.

The ward heretic wrote:As close to the source as possible is best. Copies of copies always lose weight.

I am not sure if calling them evil is helpful, but definitely that much more removed.

Then you've got to learn Greek and Hebrew. Until then it helps to have a Strong's concordance and a variety of other translations. Most modern translations aren't copies of copies or rewordings of the King James, they come from the oldest documents available. Many King James words and phrases are so old and outdated that they lose their impact and meaning.

Many modern translations are quite good. If you have a Strong's concordance you can compare and judge for yourself, I have. The King James is a beautiful document in many respects, but it is an extremely hard version to read and does contain many errors and flaws. They all have errors and lean one way or the other for a host of reasons. I find it helpful to use a variety.

I confess I sometimes study the other versions of the Bible, usually in side by side with the KJV. I may be stupid but I find them useful.

Further confession: I really like the "The Message" "translation". It makes no claim to being a faithful translation, but dang, I swear it's really good sometimes, especially when I'm really confused. Gives me something to ponder and pray about. Even on chapters I thought I understood, sometimes it really reveals a "flow" to a chapter that I didn't understand before.

5tev3 wrote:The translation of those verses is more accurate. Many modern Bibles are more accurate than the King James. 1 Corinthians 15 isn't talking about the three degrees of glory, it's talking about heavenly verses earthly bodies. The names Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial (made up) were what Joseph referred to those kingdoms as. Those names are unique to the restoration.
So the King James has an erroneous verse in it that is deceiving people about the true nature of God while the NASB eliminates it so it no longer confuses people.

There's no perfect translation of the Bible. New Translations are not "tools of the Devil" that's not a true statement. Alternate translations have been quoted in General Conference from time to time as well.

I'm not a biblical textual criticism expert, but the KJV is based on the textus receptus, which has a number of issues in terms of preserving the original meaning of biblical texts. Just one of those issues is portions of the text being filled in from the Latin Vulgate, which itself was a translation. Based on the methodologies used in reconciling textual variants (the original autographs are lost to history) in either the textus receptus or more modern translations, I don't see a satanic conspiracy.

All translations have their problems. The translators take their own assumptions into the translations. If you all really want to analyze the bible in detail, and don't have the time or skills to learn ancient Greek, or Hebrew, I recommend that you get a copy of "Strongest Strong's". For those who are not familiar with this book, you can look up any word in the NKJ Bible and reference the precise original word in Greek or Hebrew that was in the original documents and determine the context for yourself.

I have found this book useful many times myself when I try to figure out the nuances of words that may have different possible meanings.

Regards,

George Clay

This is close minded jibberish. Grant Hardy, author of Understanding the Book of Mormon and The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition notes the drawbacks of the KJV as well as recommending the use of other translations as supplemental. He specifically notes the NRSV as a higher quality translation.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/02/15/b ... hardy-kjv/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the comments someone asked, "So, if I were to invest in one other translation to supplement my NT study, what would you all suggest? The NRSV?"

Hardy's response:

Absolutely the NRSV. The number of competing Bible translations can be overwhelming, but there are only a few that really stand out in terms of popularity and scholarship–the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible (based on the New English Bible) and the New International Bible. The REB can sometimes be a bit creative in its renderings, while the NIV can sound a bit flat and is occasionally biased toward Evangelical interpretations. By contrast the NRSV is an updated and corrected version of the King James Version, so it retains most of the features celebrated by Prof. David Norton in his BYU Forum address yesterday, but it takes into account better manuscripts and linguistic advances that were unknown to scholars in the early 1600s. For LDS readers, the NRSV still uses familiar phrasing and has the dignity and resonance that we love in scripture. It’s just much more accurate and understandable (and the paragraphing, subheadings, and poetic stanzas make a world of difference). The publisher advertises the NRSV as “the most trusted, most accepted, and most accurate English translation of the Bible available today.” That seems about right to me. Get yourself a copy and your understanding of the Bible will increase by an order of magnitude.

Here are his further reflections on the topic: The King James Bible and the Future of Missionary Work
http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress. ... y-work.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stourne, I find it humorous that you used three degrees of glory, spirit world preaching and baptism for the dead as to why new translations of the Bible is riddled with error, misunderstand and devilish .

Thee Book of Mormon contains the fulness, and yet mentions none of those things. If those doctrines were that crucial, important and saving, wouldn't the most correct book on earth have something to say about it.

I don't discredit that the Bible has it's issues, but I'm not confident you are critical, scholarly or fair in your summary of why new translations of the bible are problematic.

Would you take the same critical stance against our own Doctrine and Covenants? Much has been altered, removed, changed and modified. And I'm not even talking about the Lectures on Faith.

Stourme wrote:This came up on another thread so I wanted to bring it out in the open in it's own thread.

These new translation of the Bible are, IMO, evil tools of the devil. The most notorious one at the moment is the NIV or New International Version.

As so often the case, prophesies can be fulfilled many times through out history and I believe the NIV fulfills prophesy yet again. And honestly it's both faith promoting and chilling all at the same time.

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

Nephi prophesies that the writings, as given to the original Apostles, were the pure word of God.

But after the formation of the great and abominable church, which officially formed @325AD, the scripture was not just changed, but at this time the scriptures was completely thrown out.

Remember at this time the Jews were record keepers. That was their responsibility. All the writings of the prophets were kept and maintained.

However, in 325AD, one of the first things this new church did was decide what was it's canon. It's authorized scripture. The newly appointed bishops and priests voted on which writings they would accept. This became the foundation for what would eventually become the modern Bible.

There were no prophets in Nicaea. No revelation given. These false priests voted based on their own opinion which scriptures they would allow the world to see and they discarded the rest.

Just for a few examples of what was thrown out,

There were actually 3 letters to Corinth, we only have two.
The book of the Wars of the Lord
The book of Jasher
The book of the acts of Solomon
The book of Samuel the seer
The book of Gad the seer
The book of Nathan the prophet
The prophecy of Ahijah
The visions of Iddo the seer
The book of Shemaiah
The book of Jehu
The sayings of the seers

And many more...

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

God sees the hearts of men. The less scripture there is, the less opportunity for someone to contradict what the priests is teaching as truth. In there hearts, these men chose their scripture for the reason of confusing people. This had the effect of giving the priests all power over the people. And it worked very well.

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.

There were many plain and precious things taken away and the removal is still going on.

Why and what?

When the gospel was restored to the earth and brought back all those truths that had been lost, it became easy to show someone, that was seeking the truth, the contrast of the Bible with the teachings of modern Christianity. It was a great missionary tool. Here's what they teach, here's what we teach, here's what the Bible says, which is right?

I was easily converted with this method as was a lot of people. 1 Cor 15:40, 1 Peter 4:6 ...that was all I need to see and four days later I was baptized.

The devil quickly answered. As soon as he could find those arrogant enough to change scripture directly, he stirred them up. The problem for the false churches is they can't reconcile their core doctrines with an honest view of the Bible.

Or even worse and an even bigger problem, and by bigger I mean the 800 lb gorilla in middle of the room or the bull in their china shop, is they can't reconcile what the don't have as their core doctrines.

Three degrees of glory so clearly shown in Corinthians.
The gospel taught to the dead as shown 1 Peter.
Baptism for the dead, prophets, apostles, etc...

The answer to this dilemma is easy, they just added those doctrines they didn't have, right??? Changed the doctrines they had wrong!?? Of course that's what they did....right?

Well not exactly. They came up with a much different solution. See...they can't teach what the Mormons teach because that would mean Joseph Smith was right and if Joseph Smith was right then their house of cards falls flat.

The solution they came up with was unique. If they can't teach what the Mormons are teaching, they'll just sterilize all that stuff out of the scriptures.

TA DA!!! The NIV Bible.

1 Cor 15 (King James Version)
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

1 Cor 15 (NIV)
39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

The plain and precious truth of three degrees of glory...poof gone. Notice the removal of the formal names of the kingdoms Celestial and Terrestrial. Notice the removal of the word "glory". Paul was talking about the differing glories of the resurrection. How some are greater than others. But the evangelicals only believe in one heaven. They have rendered this powerful scripture sterile and impotent.

Spirit prison is actual place and part of the plan of salvation. And Christ taught the gospel to those spirits there. He preached to them.
Notice again how the NIV sterilizes the scripture. There is no prison and a proclamation and not preaching.

1 Peter 3 (King James Version)
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Peter 3 (NIV)
19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—

These are just a couple examples. The NIV and the other modern translations of the Bible are the fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophesy. They are not the words of God. They are the works of men who's purpose is to blind your eyes and harden your hearts against truth.

In conclusion,
The wisdom of God is greater than the cunning of the devil. The Lord changed the emphasis of missionary work to giving the investigator a spiritual experience, getting them to feel the Spirit of God. This has the effect of not relying on the convincing someone intellectually which was often the case in the past but will not be possible in the future because of changing scripture.

Oh dear....
I'm sorry but this just does not hold water I'm afraid.
Firstly, the missing books you mention were not all excluded by the Catholic bishops. Many of them had never been part of the OT and had been regarded as spurious by Jewish scholars and rabbi's. These books certainly were not part of the canon received by Christians as scripture from the Jews.

Secondly, the NIV is a very good translation and represents excellent scholarship.
The verses you cite are pretty accurate in my view and do not change the KJV meaning at all. For example, "celestial" means heaven and "terrestrial" means earth. Notice that "telestial" is not mentioned (a glaring omission by Paul?).
Properly read, there is little evidence Paul was writing about anything else. I think we have traditionally read more Mormon doctrine into Paul's words here than was prudent.

1 Peter 3 (NIV) says the same thing as the KJV. In fact, in light of the clarification in D&C138, it appears the NIV rendition is more accurate.

jockeybox wrote:Stourne, I find it humorous that you used three degrees of glory, spirit world preaching and baptism for the dead as to why new translations of the Bible is riddled with error, misunderstand and devilish .

Thee Book of Mormon contains the fulness, and yet mentions none of those things. If those doctrines were that crucial, important and saving, wouldn't the most correct book on earth have something to say about it.

I find it humorous when people miss the point of a post so completely that they end creating their own talking point and arguing against it. It's like watching a puppy chase it's own tail.

You question whether the doctrines of three degrees of glory, spirit prison, and baptism for the dead are crucial when I specifically say that those are the scriptures that converted me to the restored gospel..... So yea, I have a pretty good handle on their importance in the context of missionary work.

jockeybox wrote:I don't discredit that the Bible has it's issues, but I'm not confident you are critical, scholarly or fair in your summary of why new translations of the bible are problematic.

Would you take the same critical stance against our own Doctrine and Covenants? Much has been altered, removed, changed and modified. And I'm not even talking about the Lectures on Faith.

If a red herring got into a fight with a strawman, who would win?

Lets see now, the Doctrine and Covenants were written by a prophet and maintained by all the prophets and apostles of the entire restoration. Which includes visitation by angels and even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The new translations of the Bible were created -not- by prophets and apostles, but by those that not only reject the restored gospel but actively fight against the kingdom of God. They are anti-Christs. Their inspiration comes entirely from the devil.

And you're not confident that I'm being scholarly or fair in my summary....

Jockeybox, you're absolutely right. I do not apply the same critical approach to the Doctrine and Covenants. But it's even worse than you think, I don't ask for proof for any verse in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great price. I take them as truth completely at face value. I just consider the source.

This really isn't about scholarship.

Stourme wrote: I find it humorous when people miss the point of a post so completely that they end creating their own talking point and arguing against it. It's like watching a puppy chase it's own tail.

Fair enough. I should have read your post closer.

Stourme wrote:If a red herring got into a fight with a strawman, who would win?

I appreciate you calling me out on this one. I try to avoid these things, but fall victim at times.

Stourme wrote:Lets see now, the Doctrine and Covenants were written by a prophet and maintained by all the prophets and apostles of the entire restoration. Which includes visitation by angels and even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The new translations of the Bible were created -not- by prophets and apostles, but by those that not only reject the restored gospel but actively fight against the kingdom of God. They are anti-Christs. Their inspiration comes entirely from the devil.

And you're not confident that I'm being scholarly or fair in my summary....

Jockeybox, you're absolutely right. I do not apply the same critical approach to the Doctrine and Covenants. But it's even worse than you think, I don't ask for proof for any verse in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great price. I take them as truth completely at face value. I just consider the source.

This really isn't about scholarship.

I do think there is an apt and appropriate comparison between changes in the D&C and changes in the Bible. However well intentioned, any changes to God's word is damning; dare I say devilish.

zionminded wrote:So does that make the KJV (which was translated from Greek and Hebrew) a tool of the devil too?...

Of course it is. The Book of Mormon is also a tool of satan. Conference talks are a tool of satan. For that matter, satan even manages to use Christ's own words as a tool.

Remember, a TOOL is neither evil nor good. Its USE determines its value. If I shoot my neighbor because he plays rap music, my gun has been used for evil. If I shoot an intruder in my home who is there to harm us, the same tool and the same action with it has been used for good. There have been times in my own life where I've used gospel truths to further my evil designs. It didn't make the gospel evil, it made my intentions evil.

I love the KJV of the Bible. I admire its poetry in places, and its prose in other places. For anybody who is interested in watching a well-produced documentary of the history of the KJV, I highly recommend BYUtv's "Fires of Faith" series (http://www.byutv.org/show/123d4a82-3d47 ... s-of-faith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

That being said, the KJV is, like all other versions, a translation of earlier source materials. It is not, of itself, the source material. And most of these earlier source materials, themselves, are translations and redactions from prior source materials, and so on and so forth. And so, like all the other biblical translations that the OP puzzlingly labels as "tools of the devil", the KJV certainly has its fair share of errors and loss of plain and precious truths. Joseph Smith had great faith in the KJV, but he also recognized its limitations. He often preferred to read from an old German translation of the Bible. And early in the church's history, Joseph embarked on an English restatement and redaction of the KJV text in a project spanning many years, the result of which we call either the "Joseph Smith Translation" or the "Inspired Version".

The earliest extant source material we have for the Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls (compiled during the 5th and 4th centuries, BCE), which contain copies of every book of the modern Old Testament, except for Esther. Although I am not a Hebrew linguist, I have read that many of the newer Bible translations are more accurate in their English renderings of this source material than the KJV.

The earliest surviving codices (all of which were written in Greek) from which we've derived the New Testament date from no earlier than the 2nd century, CE. And let's not even try to address the question of who actually wrote the NT gospel accounts (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-a ... authorship" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). The bottom line is that when we are dealing with scriptural textual issues, things are not as simple as we might want them to be. And, I find this genteel complexity to be faith-affirming.

Even the Book of Mormon's translation exactness is unclear, as we have no available source material with which to compare it, and there is ample room in the church for different views on the subject. For example, Brigham Young is recorded as having said that, "Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings." (See Journal of Discourses 9:311.)

And, Blake Ostler, the LDS theologian and writer, opines that the Book of Mormon translation is a modern expansion of an ancient source text, "edited and expanded in light of Joseph Smith's vocabulary and capacity for expression within his world view" (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N01_68.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

David Whitmer believed that the Book of Mormon was a "tight" translation, meaning that almost every word comprising the text appeared on the Urim and Thummim (or as we now call it, the "Seer Stone") at the bottom of Joseph's hat, and that Joseph simply read what he saw (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-tr ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) (https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Royal Skousen, who spent decades working on the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, holds an even stricter view than David Whitmer. For he interestingly postulates that the linguistic style of the Book of Mormon's English translation so exactly mirrors the English of the 16th and 17th centuries that it shows that Joseph was not really the translator, but the revelator of the English text. Almost as if the actual English translation had been done two-and-half centuries before in England by some unknown person or committee, and then held in abeyance until God saw fit to transmit that translation to Joseph in the late 1820s (http://mormonscholarstestify.org/119/royal-skousen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

It's all very interesting, and the truth most likely lies somewhere in the moderate middle of all it. After all, every word of scripture we have came to us through the inevitable filter of the mortal human experience at some stage of its transmission. Errors happen, and we just have to work within them or around them during this life.

For anybody interested in exploring biblical historical textual criticism (which means careful inspection of, not pejorative denigrating of), take a look at David Bokovoy's excellent volume, Authoring the Old Testament, Genesis - Deuteronomy (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book-no ... thoring-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Robin Hood wrote:Oh dear....
I'm sorry but this just does not hold water I'm afraid.
Firstly, the missing books you mention were not all excluded by the Catholic bishops. Many of them had never been part of the OT and had been regarded as spurious by Jewish scholars and rabbi's. These books certainly were not part of the canon received by Christians as scripture from the Jews.

This is the same argument used by evangelical apologist when defending the Bible as being the only "Word of God" belief.
Neither the evangelicals nor Jewish scholars will ever admit to not having all scripture. That would expose a fundamental flaw in their respective religions. So they create the argument that those scriptures, that they currently don't have, as being discredited and spurious.

The writings of the prophets were all maintained and kept. We can this is fact that Laban kept the brass plates for the Jews and they were maintained by Zoram.

And as close as 5th century BC, Ezra refers the reader in 1 Chronicles 29 back to:

29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

Ezra would refer people to spurious non scriptural writings? Not likely. It also means the writings of Nathan, Gad, and Samuel were being passed down and maintained.

2 Chronicles refers to "the prophecy of Ahijah" and again the book of Nathan the prophet. The Jews considered these scripture. Referring to an actual "prophecy", meaning they accepted this as coming from God.

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Obviously Ezra had access to these scriptures because he knew what was in them and accepted the fact that the reader would know them too. Which concludes that the Jews were passing them down, maintaining them, and teaching from them.

Spurious?

Robin Hood wrote:Secondly, the NIV is a very good translation and represents excellent scholarship. The verses you cite are pretty accurate in my view and do not change the KJV meaning at all. For example, "celestial" means heaven and "terrestrial" means earth. Notice that "telestial" is not mentioned (a glaring omission by Paul?).
Properly read, there is little evidence Paul was writing about anything else. I think we have traditionally read more Mormon doctrine into Paul's words here than was prudent.

1 Peter 3 (NIV) says the same thing as the KJV. In fact, in light of the clarification in D&C138, it appears the NIV rendition is more accurate.

No. I completely disagree. The KJV includes the word "glory" when referring to both Celestial and Terrestrial. Paul is absolutely not referring to "earth". He's referring to the final destination of those resurrected to the Terrestrial kingdom.

Paul is not teaching that people are resurrected to the earth. This is the biased of the NIV authors which do not believe there is such a thing as a "Terrestrial" glory.

Scripture can only be given or corrected by a prophet and no one else.

There were no prophets that worked on rewriting the Bible. As I've stated before, it's actually much worse than that. These men actively fight against the restored gospel, that makes them anti-Christs. I know many years ago James White was working on one of the translations. JW used to go on radio shows and spread anti-Mormon propaganda. It was part of his ministry.

So at the very foundation of what you're telling me is, that the devil used good scholarship and created a very good translation of the Bible.

Robin Hood wrote:I think we have traditionally read more Mormon doctrine into Paul's words here than was prudent.

Are you honestly claiming that Paul's doctrine was not Mormon doctrine??

Then who's doctrine was Paul teaching then??

Read more "Mormon" doctrine into Paul's words.... HUH??! Just ..... HUH??!!

jockeybox wrote:I do think there is an apt and appropriate comparison between changes in the D&C and changes in the Bible. However well intentioned, any changes to God's word is damning; dare I say devilish.

I see your point.

I put a lot of faith in 2 Dan, Rev 11, and D & C 45, just to name a few. These scriptures tell me those kinds of things are not something with which I need to be concerned. That's just for me personally.

But that's not to say it's not a concern for you. So again, I see your point.

gclayjr wrote:All translations have their problems. The translators take their own assumptions into the translations. If you all really want to analyze the bible in detail, and don't have the time or skills to learn ancient Greek, or Hebrew, I recommend that you get a copy of "Strongest Strong's". For those who are not familiar with this book, you can look up any word in the NKJ Bible and reference the precise original word in Greek or Hebrew that was in the original documents and determine the context for yourself.

I have found this book useful many times myself when I try to figure out the nuances of words that may have different possible meanings.

Regards,

George Clay

Hi George. The biggest problem I have with these new translations, is primarily wrapped around the type of people who created them and their motivation.

It took me a long time to get over my absolute hatred of evangelicals. Burning hatred. I can't stress that enough. In a nutshell, their evil deceptions kept my grandparents from joining the Church while they were alive. And have some cousins that I'm close to that won't even talk about it. Now I don't hate them. I just feel deep disappointment and sorrow towards them.

I've been debating in open forums for 25 years, back before the internet even. Back when RIME was the thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RelayNet Used to take nearly a week to get your posts around the world.

I've been debating subjects like "missing scripture", "3 degrees of glory", "baptism for the dead", "prophets"...I mean anything and everything with preachers, priests, and every evangelical on a mission for decades now.

I have seen so much of their retorts and logic for so long that I can smell their scent on anything they touch. I can see their finger prints so to speak. So I absolutely cringe when I see their influence in these new translations. It's the exact same arguments their apologist have been making for years. Or more importantly, the arguments they couldn't make.

1 Cor 15 is a real kick in the butt to them. They've never had an answer for it. Well, until now..they just rewrote it to favor their doctrine.

What's also very clear is that they didn't touch or even doubled down on scriptures were their apologists believe that have acceptable counters. 1 Cor 15:29 in the NIV is even more clear that the people in Corinth were performing baptism for the dead than in the KJV. However, evangelicals have been teaching for years that this was a pagan ritual. They claim that Paul was actually criticizing the practice. It's one of their anti-Mormon talking points.

So it that light it makes sense that they would make the text even more clear.

There was no divine guidance in the creation of these new "Bibles". And nothing in the world is neutral. If it didn't come from God it came from the devil. And we shouldn't expect the devil to inspire anything that ultimately will lead people back to God.

Anyways...sorry to ramble.

skmo wrote:If I shoot my neighbor because he plays rap music,

When I read that I actually stared a those words and did a double blink....

I'm like....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not sure I would convict someone for that... more like a public service. :ymdevil:

OH wait ... did I say that out loud? :-$ :-$


:)) =))

Stourme wrote:

skmo wrote:If I shoot my neighbor because he plays rap music,

When I read that I actually stared a those words and did a double blink....

I'm like....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not sure I would convict someone for that... more like a public service. :ymdevil:

OH wait ... did I say that out loud? :-$ :-$


:)) =))

Yeah, I look back on that as an example, and I'm not convinced it would be that much of a sin. Okay:

"If I shoot my neighbor because he drives a Honda Element instead of a Ford"

Still a reason with at least a little validity...

skmo wrote:

zionminded wrote:So does that make the KJV (which was translated from Greek and Hebrew) a tool of the devil too?...

Of course it is. The Book of Mormon is also a tool of satan. Conference talks are a tool of satan. For that matter, satan even manages to use Christ's own words as a tool.

Remember, a TOOL is neither evil nor good. Its USE determines its value. If I shoot my neighbor because he plays rap music, my gun has been used for evil. If I shoot an intruder in my home who is there to harm us, the same tool and the same action with it has been used for good. There have been times in my own life where I've used gospel truths to further my evil designs. It didn't make the gospel evil, it made my intentions evil.

I see your point and I agree that Satan can use anything for his purposes, even when we think that tool is immune to the influences of evil. I agree with your assessment.

5tev3 wrote:The translation of those verses is more accurate. Many modern Bibles are more accurate than the King James. 1 Corinthians 15 isn't talking about the three degrees of glory, it's talking about heavenly verses earthly bodies. The names Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial (made up) were what Joseph referred to those kingdoms as. Those names are unique to the restoration.

The Greek words are epouranios (above the sky or celestial) and epigeios (worldly or physical) and chapter 15 is distinguishing between the two. A third degree isn't even mentioned. The glories of the sun, moon, and stars are contrasted.

Even the King James Version makes it clear that there are different types of bodies and different types of glory in the resurrection. The KJV verses in question, 1 Corinthians 15:40-43, make it very clear:

“There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.

“It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.”

Notice it states in verse 40 that there are only two types of bodies and two types of glory in the resurrection, and it states in verse 41 that there are three different types of glory in the resurrection. There is obviously something missing in verse 40.

Joseph Smith restored what Paul originally wrote. Those verses state: “Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.”

As noted above, even the King James Version makes it clear that there are different types of bodies and different types of glory in the resurrection.

5tev3 wrote:The doctrine of the degrees of glory simply uses the same comparisons and borrows some of the same language.

The Bible also states that there is “glory” for those who are condemned and do not receive eternal life, as evidenced in 2 Corinthians 3:9, which states, “For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.”

5tev3 wrote:The King James version has this verse in 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

It's commonly used as proof for the doctrine of the Trinity . . . . So the King James has an erroneous verse in it that is deceiving people about the true nature of God while the NASB eliminates it so it no longer confuses people.

Really? The true doctrine of Jesus Christ is that there is one God consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This doctrine is clearly stated in Latter-day scriptures; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Here’s a dandy Book of Mormon scripture testifying of God, one God, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God without end. Amen.” - 2 Nephi 31:21

And yet another Book of Mormon scripture testifying of one God, one God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

“And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” - Mormon 7:7

Latter-day doctrine as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 20:26-29 testifies of one God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

26 “Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life,

27 “As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;

28 “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

29 “And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.”

In the Pearl of Great Price we find yet another scripture testifying of one God.

“Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.” - Moses 1:20

We believe as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”


So, regarding the points I have addressed in this post, I would just like to say that the true doctrine of Jesus Christ has been restored in these latter days. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom on the earth, and the only true doctrine is contained therein.

Franco wrote: So, regarding the points I have addressed in this post, I would just like to say that the true doctrine of Jesus Christ has been restored in these latter days. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom on the earth, and the only true doctrine is contained therein.

Words like "only true" echo of pride. There is a LOT of truth in many belief systems. There is also some amount of "error" in the church. I choose to say: "The CoJCoLDS is Christ's restored church today, and has more truth than you will find in any other organization, and will bring you to Christ faster and more completely than anything else."