The Book of Mormon vs. The King James Version of the Bible

[Prestor John]

Remember that I asked you to quote Joseph Smith claiming that the JST was an attempt to "correct" the Bible. Any official LDS source would do just as well.

Let's see how you did.

How could I possibly quote Joseph saying that? They didn't have Cliff Notes back then.

This made me "lol" when I read it.

From Joseph Smith - Mathew.

"An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23:39 and chapter 24."

Again, it claims to be a "translation," not some study or help guide.

Why do you think that pointing out the fact that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is a "translation" is some sort of revelation or big news?

The word translation is literally in the title of the work.

The work has also been called the Inspired Version.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is the Prophet's retelling of the Bible or the Bible according to him.

Basically, if you want to know how the Prophet understood or interpreted certain Bible passages, you can read his Inspired Version.

This is not new. It is not some big secret. It has literally been around for over a century and a half.

People have been writing Bible commentaries just like this for generations. The key difference is that the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have done so by direct revelation or inspiration.

It being a translation doesn't make it into a correction though. Sorry.

And from D&C 45, the Lord commanded Joseph to "translate," not provide a study guide or help.

60 And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known;

61 Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.

Yeah, no mention of "correction" here either.

You'd think that if the Prophet wanted to "correct" the Bible, he would have tried to quote the Lord telling him to do so. You know, to "deceive" his many gullible followers?

However, even though he had the perfect opportunity here, the Lord didn't tell the Prophet to "correct" anything.

And from the LDS Bible Dictionary (confirming that it was a translation intended to restore what had been lost from the Bible):

Joseph Smith Translation (JST)
A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work. Some parts of the translation were published during his lifetime.

The translation process was a learning experience for the Prophet, and several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (and also other revelations that are not published in the Doctrine and Covenants) were received in direct consequence of the work (D&C 76–77; 91). Also, specific instruction pertaining to the translation is given in D&C 37:1; 45:60–61; 76:15–18; 90:13; 94:10; 104:58; 124:89. The book of Moses and the 24th chapter of Matthew (JS—M), contained in the Pearl of Great Price, are actual excerpts from the JST. Many excerpts from the JST are also given in the appendix and footnotes in the edition of the KJV that accompanies this dictionary. The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (see 1 Ne. 13–14).

Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Knowing how the Prophet interpreted or understood certain Biblical passages may "to some extent" help assist in restoring those lost things. I mean, it would if he were a true prophet anyway.

Notice how the LDS Bible Dictionary did not claim that Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to "correct" the Bible?

In fact, it never once mentioned that "correction" was the Prophet's motive or the Lord's command.

And here are the verses in question, including some commentary from the "CES Letter."

The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version instead of the incorrect KJV version that Joseph later fixed. A typical example of the differences between the BOM, the KJV, and the JST:

3 Nephi 13:25-27

25: ...Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment.

26: Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27: Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Matthew 6:25-27 (from the King James Version Bible – not the JST)

25: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27: Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

The above Sermon on the Mount passages are identical, which is understandable as Christ may have said the same thing to both groups of people in the Old world as well as the New world. Let’s look at the JST version of the above identical passages:

Joseph Smith Translation of the same passages in the LDS Bible for Matthew 6:25-27:

25: And, again, I say unto you, Go ye into the world, and care not for the world: for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.

26: Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.

27: And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.


Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are identical. Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so, he also corrected the same identical Sermon on the Mount passage in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The Book of Mormon was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the Book of Mormon has the incorrect Sermon on the Mount passage and does not match the correct JST version in the first place?

Where did you copy and paste all this from?

Anyways, no one claimed that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew was mistranslated. Obviously, the LDS Church believes that it was not mistranslated because it appears to be exactly the same in the Bible as it was recorded in the Book of Mormon.

The LDS Church often claims that the Book of Mormon testifies to the truths found in the Bible and this is a perfect example of that.

Neither the Prophet Joseph Smith nor the LDS Church claimed that the JST was a "correction" of the Bible.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, his argument is solely based on the lack of a spiritual experience.

What reason or logic has he presented? All he did was share his opinion.

What actual evidence prove his opinion to be correct?

This post was so dishonest that it is disgusting.

Specifically on the bit about native americans being a lost Jewish tribe we know that to be false. The Native Americans crossed over the ice bridge around 12,000 years ago which is earlier than some Mormons believe the universe to be. We also know that they are more genetically related to asians than to the hebrew people. Genetics alone tell us that.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I have had spiritual experiences. Your spiritual ineptitude does not disprove those experiences.

You're a spiritual virgin. Just because you haven't had a spiritual experience doesn't mean they don't exist.

So you say.

Ok then. Define a spiritual experience in a way that is not better described by the term emotional experience. Are you claiming to have some undiscovered undetectable 6th sense?

 

[Prestor John]

Specifically on the bit about native americans being a lost Jewish tribe we know that to be false.

The Book of Mormon does not claim that any of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas were Jews.

The Book of Mormon also does not claim that all, or most, or even a significant amount of Native Americans descend from any of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The Native Americans crossed over the ice bridge around 12,000 years ago which is earlier than some Mormons believe the universe to be.

The LDS (aka "Mormon") Church does not deny that people migrated across the Siberian Land Bridge, however, the Siberian Land Bridge only theory has been disproved long ago.

You also showcase your ignorance of the "Mormon" faith with your comment about the universe. "Mormons" believe that god created the universe and everything in it and that His works had no beginning nor will they have an end.

We also know that they are more genetically related to asians than to the hebrew people. Genetics alone tell us that.

Genetics cannot disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Prestor John]

So you say.

Ok then. Define a spiritual experience in a way that is not better described by the term emotional experience. Are you claiming to have some undiscovered undetectable 6th sense?

It has actually been proven that human beings possess more than five senses.

Humans Have a Lot More Than Five Senses

Are you still claiming that there is nothing left to discover or that we have the ability to detect everything?

 

[Watchmen]

This made me "lol" when I read it.

Why do you think that pointing out the fact that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is a "translation" is some sort of revelation or big news?

The word translation is literally in the title of the work.

The work has also been called the Inspired Version.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is the Prophet's retelling of the Bible or the Bible according to him.

Basically, if you want to know how the Prophet understood or interpreted certain Bible passages, you can read his Inspired Version.

This is not new. It is not some big secret. It has literally been around for over a century and a half.

People have been writing Bible commentaries just like this for generations. The key difference is that the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have done so by direct revelation or inspiration.

It being a translation doesn't make it into a correction though. Sorry.

Yeah, no mention of "correction" here either.

You'd think that if the Prophet wanted to "correct" the Bible, he would have tried to quote the Lord telling him to do so. You know, to "deceive" his many gullible followers?

However, even though he had the perfect opportunity here, the Lord didn't tell the Prophet to "correct" anything.

Knowing how the Prophet interpreted or understood certain Biblical passages may "to some extent" help assist in restoring those lost things. I mean, it would if he were a true prophet anyway.

Notice how the LDS Bible Dictionary did not claim that Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to "correct" the Bible?

In fact, it never once mentioned that "correction" was the Prophet's motive or the Lord's command.

Where did you copy and paste all this from?

Anyways, no one claimed that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew was mistranslated. Obviously, the LDS Church believes that it was not mistranslated because it appears to be exactly the same in the Bible as it was recorded in the Book of Mormon.

The LDS Church often claims that the Book of Mormon testifies to the truths found in the Bible and this is a perfect example of that.

Neither the Prophet Joseph Smith nor the LDS Church claimed that the JST was a "correction" of the Bible.

The command to translate by inspiration is a redo, not a commentary. Translate has a meaning of its own. The Bible Dictionary expressly references a revision and restoring things that had been lost. I called it a correction, but the Bible Dictionary speaks for itself and is consistent with my term. Joseph Smith was restoring what had been lost, true?

Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, you fail to explain why the BoM follows he KJV word for word rather than the "restored" and "inspired" version that "revised" the Sermon. The study guide theory is hogwash. NEVER heard that in my decades of church meetings. You have a habit of making things up to support your view (like the whole "principal" versus "among" change to the Introduction, a position no other LDS person I've spoken with agreed with).

The source is the CES Letter (which I already stated in my previous post).

 

[Watchmen]

Genetics cannot disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Sure they can. The genetics reviewed thus far demonstrate ancient Jews are not among the ancestors of The Native Nations.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Book of Mormon does not claim that any of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas were Jews.

The Book of Mormon also does not claim that all, or most, or even a significant amount of Native Americans descend from any of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

This seems to be in strong contrast with what the early church and Joseph Smith himself stated. Care to enlighten me about the correct interpretation of the Lamanites?

The LDS (aka "Mormon") Church does not deny that people migrated across the Siberian Land Bridge, however, the Siberian Land Bridge only theory has been disproved long ago.

And we further know that no one from the middle east made it to the America's till the 18th century at the earliest.

Genetics cannot disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

As watchmen said. I have no need to repeate it.

 

[Watchmen]

Specifically on the bit about native americans being a lost Jewish tribe we know that to be false. The Native Americans crossed over the ice bridge around 12,000 years ago which is earlier than some Mormons believe the universe to be. We also know that they are more genetically related to asians than to the hebrew people. Genetics alone tell us that.

You're absolutely right. Prestor John, however, will claim the genetic markers just haven't been discovered yet and that the Book of Mormon people made up only a small fraction of what became the Native Nations (despite that the Mormon Church used to claim that the Book of Mormon people were the "principal" or primary ancestors of the Native Nations).

 

[Watchmen]

You also showcase your ignorance of the "Mormon" faith with your comment about the universe. "Mormons" believe that god created the universe and everything in it and that His works had no beginning nor will they have an end.

While most Mormons I know are not "6,000 year creationists" they are certainly out there. To claim otherwise is disengenous.

 

[Prestor John]

The command to translate by inspiration is a redo, not a commentary.

According to who?

Even if it was a call to "redo" the Bible, does that necessarily make it an attempt to restore things that had been lost or could it be an attempt to make the text clearer for the reader?

Take for example all the many different English "translations" of the Bible we have today. Yes, many people took it upon themselves to "redo" the Bible, but did they do this to "correct" the Bible? Or to restore lost knowledge?

Or did they do it because they believed that the text was difficult to understand or that the translation could be done better?

Would you accuse everyone who has retranslated the Bible of trying to "correct" the Bible or trying to restore lost knowledge?

You are jumping to the conclusion that the JST was meant to be a “correction” when it could be just as it claims to be, a “translation” or an inspired “version” of the Bible.

Translate has a meaning of its own.

It has a few possible meanings.

The Bible Dictionary expressly references a revision and restoring things that had been lost.

The Bible dictionary does claim that the JST can be viewed as a "revision", which does not necessarily imply "correction". It also refers to is as a translation.

However, as I have already mentioned, other translations of the Bible into English are also referred to as "revisions", and I don't know if you are willing to claim that those who wrote those revisions were also trying to "correct" the Bible or restore lost knowledge.

The only reference that the Bible dictionary made about the restoring of lost knowledge was when it said, "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

It does not “expressly” (which denotes a particular or specific purpose) reference the JST as an attempt to restore lost “plain and precious things.” The JST was not described as any attempt to do that.

All the Bible Dictionary said is that some things might be restored in consequence of Joseph Smith revising the Bible. Just because the revision might cause something to happen, that is not the same as saying that was the intent of the revision.

The JST was not described as having the purpose of restoring anything.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

I called it a correction, but the Bible Dictionary speaks for itself and is consistent with my term. Joseph Smith was restoring what had been lost, true?

Not true. It was a possibility but it was not the intended purpose of the work.

Joseph Smith simply sought to fulfill the commandment of God to retranslate or revise the King James Version of the Bible.

If any lost knowledge had been restored during that process it was an indirect result of that process.

Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, you fail to explain why the BoM follows he KJV word for word rather than the "restored" and "inspired" version that "revised" the Sermon.

I already told you in post #32,

“The reason that the Inspired Version of those verses was not used is because that would not have been what Jesus had said to the Nephites.

Jesus gave the same information to the Nephites that He had given to the Jews.”

The study guide theory is hogwash.

Well, I never claimed it was a “study guide”. That was the term you picked and ran with.

NEVER heard that in my decades of church meetings.

That might be because the JST is not in the Standard Works and therefore is not really discussed at Church meetings?

Or it could be that you don’t have a good memory or you weren’t paying attention when someone brought it up or that a lot of members believe the same false assumption about the JST that you believe.

You have a habit of making things up to support your view (like the whole "principal" versus "among" change to the Introduction, a position no other LDS person I've spoken with agreed with).

How can you claim that I made anything up when I supplied from various sources the true definition of the word “principal” and its synonyms?

The word “principal” does not mean what you want it to mean. If any member of the Church agrees with your false assumption then they would be just as wrong as you are.

Why can’t you judge the Church based on the facts?

Why do you always go looking for more false assumptions had among members of the Church?

As I have always said, you go out of your way to combat all the false narratives, assumptions, speculations and theories held by many rather than the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

The source is the CES Letter (which I already stated in my previous post).

Would you mind providing a link to this letter?

 

[Prestor John]

Sure they can. The genetics reviewed thus far demonstrate ancient Jews are not among the ancestors of The Native Nations.

What genetics have been reviewed and to what other genetics have they been compared?

You're absolutely right. Prestor John, however, will claim the genetic markers just haven't been discovered yet and that the Book of Mormon people made up only a small fraction of what became the Native Nations (despite that the Mormon Church used to claim that the Book of Mormon people were the "principal" or primary ancestors of the Native Nations).

Again "principal" and "primary" do not mean "sole" or "majority."

Both of those words denote an importance. They describe quality not quantity.

I cannot believe you are still touting this false claim after it has been so incontrovertibly proven to be false over and over again.

While most Mormons I know are not "6,000 year creationists" they are certainly out there. To claim otherwise is disengenous.

What does "out there" mean?

There is also a concept I need to keep drilling into your head because you continually seem to be unable to understand it.

What "most Mormons" you know claim or believe does not necessarily represent what the Church claims or believes.

 

[Prestor John]

This seems to be in strong contrast with what the early church and Joseph Smith himself stated.

What many people may or may not have said or believed does not change what the Book of Mormon actually says.

It is hard for people of any era to overcome their presuppositions. At the time that the Book of Mormon was translated, most people in the U.S. believed that all the Natives descended from the same people. They never considered multiple migrations or different groups of people. Therefore when the Book of Mormon described one group of people, they assumed that they were the only people, even though the Book of Mormon never made that claim and even provides evidence to the contrary.

Care to enlighten me about the correct interpretation of the Lamanites?

Read the Book of Mormon. Anything you hear or read about the Lamanites that is not recorded in the Book of Mormon would be a speculation or theory about those people.

I could give you my personal opinion if you'd like, but that might not be worth that much.

And we further know that no one from the middle east made it to the America's till the 18th century at the earliest.

And we "know" that how?

As watchmen said. I have no need to [repeat] it.

Then you also enjoy jumping to conclusions?

 

[Watchmen]

According to who?

Even if it was a call to "redo" the Bible, does that necessarily make it an attempt to restore things that had been lost or could it be an attempt to make the text clearer for the reader?

Take for example all the many different English "translations" of the Bible we have today. Yes, many people took it upon themselves to "redo" the Bible, but did they do this to "correct" the Bible? Or to restore lost knowledge?

Or did they do it because they believed that the text was difficult to understand or that the translation could be done better?

Would you accuse everyone who has retranslated the Bible of trying to "correct" the Bible or trying to restore lost knowledge?

You are jumping to the conclusion that the JST was meant to be a “correction” when it could be just as it claims to be, a “translation” or an inspired “version” of the Bible.

It has a few possible meanings.

The Bible dictionary does claim that the JST can be viewed as a "revision", which does not necessarily imply "correction". It also refers to is as a translation.

However, as I have already mentioned, other translations of the Bible into English are also referred to as "revisions", and I don't know if you are willing to claim that those who wrote those revisions were also trying to "correct" the Bible or restore lost knowledge.

The only reference that the Bible dictionary made about the restoring of lost knowledge was when it said, "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

It does not “expressly” (which denotes a particular or specific purpose) reference the JST as an attempt to restore lost “plain and precious things.” The JST was not described as any attempt to do that.

All the Bible Dictionary said is that some things might be restored in consequence of Joseph Smith revising the Bible. Just because the revision might cause something to happen, that is not the same as saying that was the intent of the revision.

The JST was not described as having the purpose of restoring anything.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

Not true. It was a possibility but it was not the intended purpose of the work.

Joseph Smith simply sought to fulfill the commandment of God to retranslate or revise the King James Version of the Bible.

If any lost knowledge had been restored during that process it was an indirect result of that process.

I already told you in post #32,

“The reason that the Inspired Version of those verses was not used is because that would not have been what Jesus had said to the Nephites.

Jesus gave the same information to the Nephites that He had given to the Jews.”

Well, I never claimed it was a “study guide”. That was the term you picked and ran with.

That might be because the JST is not in the Standard Works and therefore is not really discussed at Church meetings?

Or it could be that you don’t have a good memory or you weren’t paying attention when someone brought it up or that a lot of members believe the same false assumption about the JST that you believe.

How can you claim that I made anything up when I supplied from various sources the true definition of the word “principal” and its synonyms?

The word “principal” does not mean what you want it to mean. If any member of the Church agrees with your false assumption then they would be just as wrong as you are.

Why can’t you judge the Church based on the facts?

Why do you always go looking for more false assumptions had among members of the Church?

As I have always said, you go out of your way to combat all the false narratives, assumptions, speculations and theories held by many rather than the actual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Church.

Would you mind providing a link to this letter?

I'm not jumping to conclusions. The language from the sources I cited is plain as day.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What many people may or may not have said or believed does not change what the Book of Mormon actually says.

It is hard for people of any era to overcome their presuppositions. At the time that the Book of Mormon was translated, most people in the U.S. believed that all the Natives descended from the same people. They never considered multiple migrations or different groups of people. Therefore when the Book of Mormon described one group of people, they assumed that they were the only people, even though the Book of Mormon never made that claim and even provides evidence to the contrary.

Actually back in those times they didn't believe that they were decended from anyone anymore than africans or asians. Evolution hadn't caught on in the pubilc by his time. So no. Just no.

Read the Book of Mormon. Anything you hear or read about the Lamanites that is not recorded in the Book of Mormon would be a speculation or theory about those people.

I could give you my personal opinion if you'd like, but that might not be worth that much.

I mean how is this any different than when an Muslim tells me that the Qu'ran is perfect and I should go read it?

And we "know" that how?

Genetic markers, historical records, archaeology, anthropology, oral history of the natives, ect. If people went from the middle east to North America and survivied any length of time to produce offspring we would see their DNA in the native populations of North America. We do not see them. They are genetically distinct and closer to North East Asian populations than to the Eurasion decended middle eastern tribes.

Then you also enjoy jumping to conclusions?

I don't jump to conclusions. I calmly walk up the steps of evidence. There is even a handrail of logic so I don't trip. But jokes aside its not simply jumping to conclusions. You're assumption that science is wrong is jumping to conclusions.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not jumping to conclusions. The language from the sources I cited is plain as day.

You don't even know or use the correct definition so the words "principal", "primary", "foremost" or "chief".

I do not consider your opinion about any "language" or "context" of anything to be of any value because you consistently use your own definitions of words and not the actual definitions of those words then you judge what has been written by your own definitions and not the actual definitions.

The most the Bible Dictionary claims is that the JST may "to some extent" help restore lost things. Obviously it was not the "intent" of the inspired translation to restore or correct, but it may happen as a consequence.

In fact, evidence seems to show that the purpose that God had in commanding Joseph Smith to retranslate the Bible was so that he would receive further revelation on Biblical doctrines and principles and record them as new scripture (such as D&C 76).

Now, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Do you consider any other translations of the Bible to be attempts to "correct" the Bible or restore lost things?

Can you now provide a link that the CES letter you have been mentioning?

 

[Prestor John]

Actually back in those times they didn't believe that they were decended from anyone anymore than africans or asians. Evolution hadn't caught on in the pubilc by his time. So no. Just no.

I don't understand how you can be so confused.

You honestly believe that people in the 19th century did not understand the concept of descent and ancestry? No one needs to have any knowledge of the theories of evolution to understand these concepts.

They most likely believed that all Africans descended from the same people, as well as all Asians from the same people.

I mean how is this any different than when an Muslim tells me that the Qu'ran is perfect and I should go read it?

It is very different.

First, no one ever claimed that the Book of Mormon was "perfect".

Second, you asked me a question about the Lamanites (a people described in the Book of Mormon), therefore, I am not in any error in referring you to the Book of Mormon to learn more about the Lamanites.

If you asked a Muslim about a particular teaching found in the Qu'ran, you think that Muslim would be in error if they refer you to the Qu'ran?

Genetic markers, historical records, archaeology, anthropology, oral history of the natives, ect. If people went from the middle east to North America and survivied any length of time to produce offspring we would see their DNA in the native populations of North America. We do not see them. They are genetically distinct and closer to North East Asian populations than to the Eurasion decended middle eastern tribes.

Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?

I don't jump to conclusions. I calmly walk up the steps of evidence. There is even a handrail of logic so I don't trip. But jokes aside its not simply jumping to conclusions. You're assumption that science is wrong is jumping to conclusions.

Your assumption that science is perfect, complete or can magically disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon are assumptions.

 

[Watchmen]

You don't even know or use the correct definition so the words "principal", "primary", "foremost" or "chief".

I do not consider your opinion about any "language" or "context" of anything to be of any value because you consistently use your own definitions of words and not the actual definitions of those words then you judge what has been written by your own definitions and not the actual definitions.

The most the Bible Dictionary claims is that the JST may "to some extent" help restore lost things. Obviously it was not the "intent" of the inspired translation to restore or correct, but it may happen as a consequence.

In fact, evidence seems to show that the purpose that God had in commanding Joseph Smith to retranslate the Bible was so that he would receive further revelation on Biblical doctrines and principles and record them as new scripture (such as D&C 76).

Now, why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Do you consider any other translations of the Bible to be attempts to "correct" the Bible or restore lost things?

Can you now provide a link that the CES letter you have been mentioning?

You're playing word games. Not me.

 

[Prestor John]

You're playing word games. Not me.

Could you please provide an example of how I am playing any sort of "word games"?

You accuse me of these types of things often, but you can never get any further than the accusation.

How about you PROVE that I am playing a "word game" and while you're at it, finally answer my question and provide the link I've asked for.

Also, just to get the jump on you, my use of the ACTUAL DEFINITION of a given word is not "playing a word game", so don't even try it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't understand how you can be so confused.

You honestly believe that people in the 19th century did not understand the concept of descent and ancestry? No one needs to have any knowledge of the theories of evolution to understand these concepts.

They most likely believed that all Africans descended from the same people, as well as all Asians from the same people.

Not necessarily. In fact the tower of Babel is a commonly referred to story for describing the phenomenon of vastly differnet people, cultures and languages.

It is very different.

First, no one ever claimed that the Book of Mormon was "perfect".

Second, you asked me a question about the Lamanites (a people described in the Book of Mormon), therefore, I am not in any error in referring you to the Book of Mormon to learn more about the Lamanites.

If you asked a Muslim about a particular teaching found in the Qu'ran, you think that Muslim would be in error if they refer you to the Qu'ran?

I don't actually recall where i was going with this point. I may have mis-read your response. If I remember I'll bring it back up but for now I will drop it.

Which Amerindians were sampled? How large was the sample size? Were the samples compared to Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E? What about the issues of bottlenecking and genetic drift?

Your assumption that science is perfect, complete or can magically disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon are assumptions.

Your assumption that science is in total error when it is against your religious beliefs is a bias. If you feel that the science is wrong and that they are in error then I would take it up with them. However no one in the scientific community has found issue with it so far. As it stands it is one of the most solid descriptions of the recent migration and evolution of the human race. They have taken tens of thousands of samples and millions since. They took care to specifically get genetically diverse samples so that we have samples from all places on earth. That was the point of the study.