Changes to Mormon Scriptures

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight, I’m happy to respond when the questions and posts are not meant as an attack. But so many of the “questions” are not questions at all. They are meant to demonstrate superiority or to garner support. When this happens there is no serious communication that can occur. I think if you took time to think about it you would see that this is the case.

nope. your problem is, you see truth as an attack. You see points you cannot respond to as attacks. You see issues that prove you wrong as things to run from.

Everyone sees it that way…you would, too, if you were honest

 

[Janderich]

Translations are not changes. A translation is changing it from one language to another. Not changing the text, or the doctrine contained within it.

You make me giggle.

Maybe you haven’t seen the changes to the Book of Mormon. One day I reveiwed the changes hoping to see significant changes in doctrine or context. In almost every case but a few I was disapointed. Changes like “arriven” to “arrived”. Typographical errors like “aaswer” to “answer”, “daghter” to “daughter”.

But the most common changes have not been in spelling, but in grammar. For example, there have been 891 changes of which to who, 177 changes of exceeding to exceedingly. Many changes involve a change in number or tense of verbs. Was was changed to were 162 times, is to are 74 times, and done to did 10 times. (Ensign, Dec. 1983, Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon)

The few significant changes I saw were in 1 Ne 11 dealing with the “son of God” and some changes from “white” to “pure”. There was very little else.

 

[TexanKnight]

Maybe you haven’t seen the changes to the Book of Mormon. One day I reveiwed the changes hoping to see significant changes in doctrine or context. In almost every case but a few I was disapointed. Changes like “arriven” to “arrived”. Typographical errors like “aaswer” to “answer”, “daghter” to “daughter”.

The few significant changes I saw were in 1 Ne 11 dealing with the “son of God” and some changes from “white” to “pure”. There was very little else.

hard to believe the most correct book could have all those. Wouldn’t God, if it was His word, be a better guide?

I mean, since it is the most correct book and all

 

[twopekinguys]

Maybe you haven’t seen the changes to the Book of Mormon. One day I reveiwed the changes hoping to see significant changes in doctrine or context. In almost every case but a few I was disapointed. Changes like “arriven” to “arrived”. Typographical errors like “aaswer” to “answer”, “daghter” to “daughter”.

The few significant changes I saw were in 1 Ne 11 dealing with the “son of God” and some changes from “white” to “pure”. There was very little else.

You don’t think changing from White and Delightsome to Pure and Delightsome isn’t a doctrinal change?

Is it because dark skinned people weren’t turning white?

*"First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.” "*

Definitely a doctrinal change wouldn’t you say?

How about this little doctrinal difference?
*
“First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):.”…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" *

My personal favorite:

Title page: (both versions) 1830: “…by Joseph Smith, jr., **author **and proprietor”

Today: “**translated **by Joseph Smith, jr.”

Read more here.

 

[batman1973]

Maybe you haven’t seen the changes to the Book of Mormon. One day I reveiwed the changes hoping to see significant changes in doctrine or context. In almost every case but a few I was disapointed. Changes like “arriven” to “arrived”. Typographical errors like “aaswer” to “answer”, “daghter” to “daughter”.

The few significant changes I saw were in 1 Ne 11 dealing with the “son of God” and some changes from “white” to “pure”. There was very little else.

Dude, there were doctrinal changes. The original BoM was darn near Catholic:
First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”

Compared to today:1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.”
First Book of Nephi, p.26 (1830): “And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the world…”

Comapred to Today: 1 Nephi 11:32: “…yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world…”

First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):."…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: “yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!”

Then, there’s a huge chunk added:Book of Alma p.315; (1830): “But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”

Today: Alma 32:30: “But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”

Minor spelling and punctuation changes indeed.

 

[Janderich]

nope. your problem is, you see truth as an attack. You see points you cannot respond to as attacks. You see issues that prove you wrong as things to run from.

Everyone sees it that way…you would, too, if you were honest

You have misjudged me and my motives. Now let me give you an example of what I see from you. Your thread called “Cumorah” asks this question.

So why no excavation? They own the land…excavating it would be easy.

Could it be because they KNOW the Book of Mormon is fake and that they will find nothing there?

Why else would they refuse to excavate there? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10424743&postcount=1

Now do you really think you are open to an answer? After all, you answer your own question when you say, “Could it be because they KNOW the Book of Mormon is fake and that they will find nothing there?”

 

[TexanKnight]

In a footnote on page 295 of the same book Mr. Roberts stated:

“But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published.”

John H. Gilbert, the man who helped to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the Mormons did not want him to correct the grammatical errors which were in the manuscript:

"When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript … On the second day — Harris and Smith being in the office — I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: ‘The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.’ … .

“Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than any one else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.” (Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction)

 

[TexanKnight]

You have misjudged me and my motives. Now let me give you an example of what I see from you. Your thread called “Cumorah” asks this question.
Now do you really think you are open to an answer? After all, you answer your own question when you say, “Could it be because they KNOW the Book of Mormon is fake and that they will find nothing there?”

Sure…if you have an answer.

But, if you have no answer, it is easier to call it an attack and run from it.

And you have become very good at that

 

[TexanKnight]

In Mosiah 21:28 the name of the king has been changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

“… king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings …” (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 200)

In modern editions of the Book of Mormon this verse has been changed to read:

“… king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings …” (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, Mosiah 21:28)

According to chronology found in the Book of Mormon, king Benjamin should have been dead at this time; therefore, the Mormon Church leaders evidently felt that it was best to change the king’s name to Mosiah.

 

[Janderich]

You don’t think changing from White and Delightsome to Pure and Delightsome isn’t a doctrinal change?

Is it because dark skinned people weren’t turning white?

"First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.” "

Definitely a doctrinal change wouldn’t you say?

How about this little doctrinal difference?
*
“First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):.”…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"*

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"

My personal favorite:

Title page: (both versions) 1830: “…by Joseph Smith, jr., **author **and proprietor”

Today: “**translated **by Joseph Smith, jr.”

Read more here.

twopekinguys, you have simply confirmed the two significant changes I previously noted.

 

[TexanKnight]

Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

"… for this cause did king Benjamin keep them … "

In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:

"… for this cause did king Mosiah keep them … "

A change has been made in the First Book of Nephi, evidently in an attempt to strengthen the Mormon claim that baptism was practiced by the people in the Old Testament. This verse is taken from Isaiah 48, and appears as follows in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord … " (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 52)

In modern editions it reads as follows:

"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord … " (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, 1 Nephi 20:1)

 

[SteveVH]

You don’t think changing from White and Delightsome to Pure and Delightsome isn’t a doctrinal change?

Is it because dark skinned people weren’t turning white?

"First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.” "

Definitely a doctrinal change wouldn’t you say?

How about this little doctrinal difference?
*
“First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):.”…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"*

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"

My personal favorite:

Title page: (both versions) 1830: “…by Joseph Smith, jr., **author **and proprietor”

Today: “**translated **by Joseph Smith, jr.”

Read more here.

These are major changes in theology and doctrine and if the changes are correct then their doctrine needs to be corrected as well. It seems that something like this should not just one day appear in an updated version of the book, but would have been announced and defended at one of their General Conferences or something.

More than several times I have been told by Mormons that Jesus is the Father which would keep pace with the 1830’s version. If they believed that this was true until the revised version this has to be a huge change. It is hard to believe that it is dismissed as a minor change on the level of a typo.

 

[TexanKnight]

utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

shows that there are a LOT more non-grammatical changes than Janderich would have you believe.

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys, you have simply confirmed the two significant changes I previously noted.

Did you miss the Read more here part?

I wanted to let you have some fun finding other changes too.

Nothing to say about JS “author” vs “translator”?

Simply proves the BoM is a novel.

Nothing to say about the doctrinal change of white to pure?

 

[SteveVH]

Maybe you haven’t seen the changes to the Book of Mormon. One day I reveiwed the changes hoping to see significant changes in doctrine or context. In almost every case but a few I was disapointed. Changes like “arriven” to “arrived”. Typographical errors like “aaswer” to “answer”, “daghter” to “daughter”.

May I ask what changes you were hoping to see, so much so that you were disappointed that in most cases there were no changes? I would hope to God that I would never see a change in the sacred texts that make up the Bible. But that will never happen because it is inerrant.

The few significant changes I saw were in 1 Ne 11 dealing with the “son of God” and some changes from “white” to “pure”. There was very little else.

Those are pretty major changes but not as major as some of the others that have been pointed out on this thread.

 

[Janderich]

May I ask what changes you were hoping to see, so much so that you were disappointed that in most cases there were no changes? I would hope to God that I would never see a change in the sacred texts that make up the Bible. But that will never happen because it is inerrant.

Those are pretty major changes but not as major as some of the others that have been pointed out on this thread.

Sorry Benjamin to Mosiah is not doctrinal, and the added words to Alma 32 were a printers error which was later fixed. Now I hope you don’t think the Bible is inerrant (ie. incapable of being wrong). This is simply not the case.

 

[TexanKnight]

Sorry Benjamin to Mosiah is not doctrinal, and the added words to Alma 32 were a printers error which was later fixed. Now I hope you don’t think the Bible is inerrant (ie. incapable of being wrong). This is simply not the case.

nice dodge…

and those you mentioned may not be doctrinal…

but it shows the book is fiction and that it is nowhere near the most correct book

 

[Janderich]

It is funny how hard and deep the opposition digs to find these changes and how much they try to make of them. Yet they close their eyes to the Bible changes. Let me ask a question, is the Bible perfect or are their errors? If there are errors why would God allow such?

 

[Janderich]

nice dodge…

and those you mentioned may not be doctrinal…

but it shows the book is fiction and that it is nowhere near the most correct book

TexanKnight did you see my comment about “most correct” (not “most perfect” as you stated)?

 

[TexanKnight]

It is funny how hard and deep the opposition digs to find these changes and how much they try to make of them. Yet they close their eyes to the Bible changes. Let me ask a question, is the Bible perfect or are their errors? If there are errors why would God allow such?

lol…you have problems with your red herrings.

first, no one ever claimed the Bible to be “the most correct book”

second, The Bible was written thousands of years ago…the Book of mormon written less than 200 years ago.

The Bible was not translated into English first. The Book of Mormon was.

The Bible was written by many men. The Book of Mormon by Joe, copying from other sources.

I admire your attempt to throw red herrings to shift the focus…but it will not work.