FAIR - Contribuições do utilizador [pt]

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-09-09T00:49:04Z

MikeSantoy:

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
Thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were omitted from previous editions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon

This type of error is common in publishing, and some translators and scribes of the Bible have made similar errors.

In this case, it appears that the typesetter mistakenly omitted these words. Such an error is understandable, given that the manuscript which Joseph Smith provided to the printer had no paragraph marks or punctuation.

Two LDS authors wrote:
:"This is an example of a mistake with no apparent harmful consequences. And while there have been a number of editorial changes in the Book of Mormon over the years, even those who criticize its authenticity acknowledge that the changes are not of major doctrinal significance. However, many of the errors in the translation, transmission, and editing of the New Testament are significantly greater consequence."{{ref|juddstoddard}}

Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

'''1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:'''

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness

'''1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:'''

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
==Conclusion==

The change is not a modification of Joseph's translation, but restores omitted text which Joseph translated.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 159-160 ISBN 1590386272

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T20:51:40Z

MikeSantoy: /* Response */

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon

This is similar to some errors that were made by some translators and scribes of the Bible. It appears that the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.
Authors of Without a cause wrote:
"This is an example of a mistake with no apparent harmful consequences. And while there have been a number of editorial changes in the Book of Mormon over the years, even those who criticize its authenticity acknowledge that the changes are not of major doctrinal significance. However, many of the errors in the translation, transmision, and editing of the New Testament are significantly greater consequence."{{ref|juddstoddard}}

Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T20:36:59Z

MikeSantoy:

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to some errors that were made by some translators and scribes of the Bible. It appears that the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.
Authors of Without a cause wrote:
"This is an example of a mistake with no apparent harmful consequences. And while there have been a number of editorial changes in the Book of Mormon over the years, even those who criticize its authenticity acknowledge that the changes are not of major doctrinal significance. However, many of the errors in the translation, transmision, and editing of the New Testament are significantly greater consequence."{{ref|juddstoddard}}

Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T20:33:48Z

MikeSantoy:

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to the errors that were made by some translators and scribes of the Bible. Most likely the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.
Authors of Without a cause wrote:
"This is an example of a mistake with no apparent harmful consequences. And while there have been a number of editorial changes in the Book of Mormon over the years, even those who criticize its authenticity acknowledge that the changes are not of major doctrinal significance. However, many of the errors in the translation, transmision, and editing of the New Testament are significantly greater consequence."{{ref|juddstoddard}}
Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T20:19:42Z

MikeSantoy: /* Response */

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to the errors that were made by some translators and scribes of the Bible. Most likely the typesetter mistankenly missed those words. This mistake did not alter the message of the Book of Mormon nor was a "plain and precious" thing that was lost, nor corrupted, nor was the fulness of the Gospel Lost (see [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel]]), nor do latter day saints believe that the Book of Mormon is free of error.
Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T19:53:04Z

MikeSantoy:

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to the errors that were made by some translators and scribes of the Bible. Most likely the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.

Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Textual criticism]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T17:56:45Z

MikeSantoy:

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to the errors made by some translators of the Bible. Most likely the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.

Original Manuscript:
{{nw}}

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

O Livro de Mórmon/Alterações textuais/Trinta e cinco palavras no final de Alma 32:30 foram omitidas

2008-08-24T15:41:08Z

MikeSantoy: New page: {{draft}} {{nw}} ==Response== thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 19...

{{draft}}
{{nw}}
==Response==
thirty-five words at the end of Alma 32:30 in the original manuscript were ommited in previous versions of the Book of Mormon. The text was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon{{ref|juddstoddard}}

This is similar to the errors made by some translators of the Bible. Most likely the typesetter mistankenly missed those words.

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness {{ref|one30}}

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the 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 I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. {{ref|two31}}

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272
#{{note|one30}}" {{nw}}
#{{note|two31}}" {{nw}}

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-07-01T05:37:21Z

MikeSantoy: Removing all content from page

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-06-30T21:57:15Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T07:15:42Z

MikeSantoy:

(My interpretation of D&C Section 130) Joseph Smith said
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos made a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1:23)
which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith to rest If he was still alive by around the year 1890
if thoue livest until thou art eighty-five years old (D&C 130:15)
The Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be kill and he allowed Joseph Smith to be kill before he reached the age of 85 for justice.
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain (D&C 5:22)
and the Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be murder(HC 6:546)

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T07:13:50Z

MikeSantoy:

(My interpretation of D&C Section 130) Joseph Smith said
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos made a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1:23)
which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith to rest IF he was still alive at around the year 1890
if thoue livest until thou art eighty-five years old (D&C 130:15)
The Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be kill and he allowed Joseph Smith to be kill before he reached the age of 85 for justice.
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain (D&C 5:22)
and the Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be murder(HC 6:546)

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T07:09:11Z

MikeSantoy:

(My interpretation of D&C Section 130) Joseph Smith said
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos made a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1:23)
Which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith to rest IF he was still alive at around 1890
if thoue livest until thou art eighty-five years old (D&C 130:15)
The Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be kill and allowed the death of Joseph Smith before he reached the age 85 for justice.
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain (D&C 5:22)
and the Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be murder(HC 6:546)

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T06:40:49Z

MikeSantoy:

(My interpretation of D&C Section 130) Joseph Smith said
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos made a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1:23)
Which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith to rest IF he was still alive at age 85,
Which it is written in D&C
if thoue livest until thou art eighty-five years old (D&C 130:15)
The Lord allowed Joseph Smith to be kill before reaching age 85. In the Book of Alma it says
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain (D&C 5:22)
and the Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be murder(HC 6:546)

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T06:23:22Z

MikeSantoy:

My interpretation of D&C Section 130 is that
in D&C, Joseph Smith says
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos makes a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1:23)
Which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith to rest if he was still alive at age 85, but in the book of Alma it says
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain (D&C 5:22)
and the Lord knew Joseph Smith was going to be murder(HC 6:546)

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T06:11:10Z

MikeSantoy:

My interpretation of D&C Section 130 is that
in D&C Joseph Smith says
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos makes a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1: 23)
Which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith at age 85 to rest(die), but in the book of Alma it says
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain.
D&C 5:22
and the Lord knew he was going to be kill HC 6:546

Who agrees with my interpretation?

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T06:09:29Z

MikeSantoy:

Discussão:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890

2008-04-14T06:06:29Z

MikeSantoy: New page: My interpretation In D&C Joseph Smith writes whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16) which the prophet Enos makes a similar statement then shall I see his face with ...

My interpretation
In D&C Joseph Smith writes
whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C 130:16)
which the prophet Enos makes a similar statement
then shall I see his face with pleasure(Enos 1: 23)
Which I believe the Lord was going to call Joseph Smith at age 85 to rest(die), but in the book of Alma it says
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain (Alma 60:13)
and in D&C it says
behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain.
D&C 5:22
and the Lord knew he was going to be kill HC 6:546

Who agress with my interpretation?

Utilizador:MikeSantoy

2008-04-08T22:57:58Z

MikeSantoy: Removing all content from page

Utilizador:MikeSantoy

2008-04-02T03:21:27Z

MikeSantoy: Undo revision 22264 by MikeSantoy (Talk)

I hope the Bishop gives me the mission papers this sunday, I am ready to go, hopefully by the beginings of July, so I would only be able to help FAIR wiki for a short time.

Utilizador:MikeSantoy

2008-04-02T03:19:22Z

MikeSantoy: Removing all content from page

Utilizador:MikeSantoy

2008-04-02T03:15:59Z

MikeSantoy: New page: I hope the Bishop gives me the mission papers this sunday, I am ready to go, hopefully by the beginings of July, so I would only be able to help FAIR wiki for a short time.

I hope the Bishop gives me the mission papers this sunday, I am ready to go, hopefully by the beginings of July, so I would only be able to help FAIR wiki for a short time.

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T07:11:56Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a small fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels. It’s clear that the organized Bible commissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choosed 66 books form "the Bible" and yet the earliest New Testament Library (even in Greek, found closer to Jerusalem and Judea, and older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.(and the Bible was not only suppost to have 66 books http://en.fairmormon.org/Lost_scripture). There is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
''RESPONSE

It was not me (Mike S) who wrote this claim, but I wrote the example to support the idea of that claim, for we Latter Day Saints interpret the stick of Joseph in {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} to be Book of Mormon. With the adding of the words "of wood" totaly changes the message and its affected by the translators beliefs''

:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T04:14:11Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a small fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choosed 66 books form "the Bible" and yet the earliest New Testament Library (even in Greek, found closer to Jerusalem and Judea, and older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.(and the Bible was not only suppost to have 66 books http://en.fairmormon.org/Lost_scripture). There is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
''RESPONSE

It was not me (Mike S) who wrote this claim, but I wrote the example to support the idea of that claim, for we Latter Day Saints interpret the stick of Joseph in {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} to be Book of Mormon. With the adding of the words "of wood" totaly changes the message and its affected by the translators beliefs''

:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T04:11:00Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a small fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choosed 66 books form "the Bible" and yet the earliest New Testament Library (even in Greek, found closer to Jerusalem and Judea, and older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.(and the Bible was not only suppost to have 66 books http://en.fairmormon.org/Lost_scripture
CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
''RESPONSE

It was not me (Mike S) who wrote this claim, but I wrote the example to support the idea of that claim, for we Latter Day Saints interpret the stick of Joseph in {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} to be Book of Mormon. With the adding of the words "of wood" totaly changes the message and its affected by the translators beliefs''

:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T03:36:21Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.
CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
''RESPONSE

It was not me (Mike S) who wrote this claim, but I wrote the example to support the idea of that claim, for we Latter Day Saints interpret the stick of Joseph in {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} to be Book of Mormon. With the adding of the words "of wood" totaly changes the message and its affected by the translators beliefs''

:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T03:05:36Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.
CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T02:58:58Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices (which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). THE POINT IS scholarly using the earliest manuscripts to support the modern Bible or a modern Bible version will not be a good idea.
CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T02:30:36Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.

:''RESPONSE
* It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices, which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). So using the earliest manuscripts based on scholarship to support the Bible or a Bible version will not be a good idea. CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''

:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T02:23:49Z

MikeSantoy: /* Problems with proposed text */

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
:''RESPONSE
It is clear that the scriptures were currupt out of malice

''
:''It is clear that the first corruption of the scriptures were done out of malice (1 Nephi 13) even before the Bible was compiled (based on what Joseph Smith teach), right after the death of the apostles (1 Nephi 13:26-19), even though the apostasy started before their death. The earliest NT manuscript which is just a fragment is dated 120 A.D -150 A.D , was made at least 40 years after the closing of the New testament. (Not many manuscripts dated on the second century). There are many evidences outside the scriptures of the corruption of the NT scriptures by the end of the second century. Church fathers referred to the corruption of the scripture such as Origen who complained about the copies of the Gospels he accessed. It’s clear that the organized Bible decommissioned by Constantine in the fourth century was already corrupt, which only 4 Gospels out of many and 66 books out of many were chosen without authority to be orthodox. So if anyone claims that a Bible version is more accurate based on early manuscripts and discoveries, they will ignored that men choose 66 books to be in the Bible and yet, the earliest New Testament Library even in Greek (older than Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts) are the Nag Hammadi Codices, which are rejected by most Christians today and the Gnostic text are considered to be corrupt works even tough they can contain some truths). So using the earliest manuscripts based on scholarship to support the Bible or a Bible version will not be a good idea. CONCLUSION, there is only over 5,700 surviving manuscripts, not two are exactly alike, so critics cannot intellectually claim to have a Bible closer to how the writings of the apostles were. .''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.
:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T01:14:31Z

MikeSantoy:

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
:''No original manuscript of the New Testament has been found, so critics cannot prove that other versions or translations are correct.''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.
:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE FOR THE ARGUMENTS
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T01:13:16Z

MikeSantoy:

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
:''No original manuscript of the New Testament has been found, so critics cannot prove that other versions or translations are correct.''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.
:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
:''RESPONSE for the arguments
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Discussão:Bible/Translations

2008-03-29T01:07:04Z

MikeSantoy:

==Problems with proposed text==
I read Mike S.'s placeholder text for this article, and I have some significant concerns about the direction it's going. ''To wit:''
:''No original manuscript of the New Testament has been found, so critics cannot prove that other versions or translations are correct.''
This claim greatly oversimplifies the methodology of textual criticism. For example:
*Textual critics work by examining the readings supported by the ''oldest'' texts, a ''majority'' of texts, and the most ''geographically diverse'' texts. A single, very old text from a remote area (say, western Europe) would not be considered superior to a wide range of texts that were somewhat older but closer to the source (Asia Minor).
*Texts are grouped into [http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype families]: Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text-type makes up 94% of all Greek NT manuscripts, they are all very late, the earliest having been written about the 9th century A.D. Most modern translations favor the so-called Eclectic approach, using the Alexandrian text-type as its base and incorporating elements from the other traditions.
*All other things being equal, a ''more difficult'' reading is preferred to an easier reading, because scribes would be more likely to make changes that make difficult readings easier, not the other way around.
This just scratches the surface. To claim that "no original manuscripts exist, therefore we don't know how the originals read" ignores a vast amount of scholarly literature on the Biblical text that goes back hundreds of years.
:''Some modern translations are affected by the beliefs of the translators, who render certain passages differently depending on their theological biases. One example is {{b||Ezekiel|37|16}} which some translators (such in the NIV) translated the scripture adding the words "of wood".''
Yes, this is true of ''any'' translation, but the King James Version is probably the biggest offender in this regard.

For example, the KJV translates {{s||Isaiah|26|19}}a, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," a clear allusion to the future resurrection of Jehovah/Jesus Christ. This is a thoroughly irresponsible rendering of the text, which actually reads "Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise" (NIV).

Likewise in {{s||Daniel|3|25}}b, which the KJV renders, "...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This translation was driven by the translators' theological bias to see a pre-mortal Jesus Christ in the fiery furnace with the three young men -- even though the person who said the words was a polytheistic Babylonian who didn't have any understanding of a "Son of God." The passage ''should'' read "son of the gods," as it does in every modern translation (including theologically conservative ones like the NIV and NET).
:''Using early manuscripts and discoveries is no good to prove that a Bible version is more accurate. {{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}} is not in the earliest manuscripts, but the text is considered as restored. A large number of early manuscripts and discoveries (like the rediscovered Gnostic Gospel of Judas) are in error. Even early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus came from "copies of copies'' So in conclusion it cannot be intellectually disprove that inspired KJV translators restored some text the way they are suppose to be read (due to that there is multiple ways of translating a text).''
There are a number of significant problems with this claim:
*The ''pericope adulterae'' does not appear in any NT manuscript until the 5th century, when it appears in the singular Codex Bezae (although one example of an early Christian writing has been discovered from the fourth century that quotes it). The evidence is overwhelming that it's a late addition to John, probably a popular story that circulated among Christians that was added by a well-meaning scribe.
*On what basis do you claim that the ''pericope'' is "restored"? Is there any revelation or scholarship indicating that the story was in the original gospel, then lost, then recovered?
*On what basis do you claim that the KJV translators were "inspired"?
Defending the ''pericope'' is not something we should try to do, especially when another FAIR wiki article (correctly) includes it in [[Textual_criticism#Examples_of_variant_readings|a list of suspect passages]].
: RESPONSE, Responding to evangelical anti-mormons
*Absolutely it cannot be proven that this was not an addition by scholarship, but the best evidence that we have for this claim is the JST of John 8:11, to which Joseph Smith added a sentence. Joseph Smith never said that this was a made up story like "The Song of Solomon" were JST manuscript states that this is not an inspired writing. As for a response to evangelical anti-mormons that critic the JST and KJV, the story of the adulterous woman is accepted by most Christians, if an evangelical anti-mormon believes in this story, then he cannot critic the JST or the KJV Bible (talking in a universal point of view). Further reading, Elder Alexander B. Morrison, ""PLAIN AND PRECIOUS THINGS" THE WRITING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 14-16. ISBN 1590386272
:''We continue to use the KJV because of its linguistic similarity to the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. (This needs evidence.)''
:''Most of the Book of Mormon was translated in the English of the KJV Bible''
:''There is nothing preventing Latter-day Saints from using other Bible translations in their personal study of the scriptures.''
On these last three claims, I agree with you. And this is my point -- Latter-day Saints continue to use the KJV simply because of its strong linguistic ties to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There are no other reasons for continuing to use the KJV, and many, many reasons to discard it in favor of a more modern translation.

The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.
--[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 16:57, 28 March 2008 (MDT)