Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: frog!jp@endor.harvard.edu (John Pimentel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Book of Mormon Message-ID: Date: 25 Aug 90 07:10:08 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Charles River Data Systems Lines: 78 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article Stephen Simmons writes: >previous posting, the original meaning has not been lost because we >still have manuscripts (even ones quite ancient) in the original >languages. But did the authors write them in those languages, or are those the original translations? >If I may clarify, scholars preserved copies of these in the original >language. ... >As you mentioned, the English Bible was translated in about 1540. It >was not translated from 16th century Greek manuscripts, however. It >was translated from 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th century Greek manuscripts >and 10th century Hebrew manuscripts. So many manuscripts for the same work. Why the different manuscripts, if the scholars preserved the original copies? >In summary (to this question, anyway), I state that the New Testament >could not have been corrupted nor are there any significant errors in >it. As you have shown. >>a work to translate and during my reading I found a section that looked >>familiar,e.g., something I wrote earlier, I would copy that section in >>the spot of this familiarity, rather than translate that section again. > >You miss the point. I was refering to original languages, not >translations. If anyone thinks that the Translators of our Bibles >have done such a thing, let him learn Greek & Hebrew and see the >contrary. No, I feel you are missing the point, if you can prove that the orginal authors knew Greek, as an example, and these authors bounced between the languages of the era with ease, then you are correct in your point. Otherwise, these other language translations are just that, translations, and not the original. No difference is made, if someone later translated the copy. Personally, I acknowledge -- not for the sake of this argument -- that errors crept in, unless, of course, they had a Xerox; there was only "Perfect" person, and his name was Jesus Christ, everyone else makes mistakes. Only a short-sighted person sees no errors from a work that has been for centuries in the hand of man, unless of course, these men had the best interests of God first. >>One further item, Joseph Smith also retranslated parts of the Bible, to >>put back the meaning that was accidently/deliberately omitted (not >>intended as an accusation, but covering all the bases). > >Because of this "controversy," I have recently started reading the Book >of Mormon to see what it is about. Today, I read a verse that said >something to this effect: Not that it will produce fruit, but I, for one, would like the scriptural references, just like those cases in which you quote the Bible. Quite frankly, I don't have a desire to search some 718,000 words to find the string you pulled up to prove your point from the BoM. >Dear Mormon friends: > If you can answer these questions that I have raised, please do. >But without presenting evidence for an unreliable Bible don't try to >convince us that the Bible is reliable. I won't try to convince that the Bible is reliable. >--Stephen Simmons > >P.S. Does any one have a computerized version of the BoM? Not yet. --- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered.