DiscussMormonism.com

I was reading online somewhere that the original Book of Mormon was altered. Is this true?

twinkie wrote:I was reading online somewhere that the original Book of Mormon was altered. Is this true?

Yes. Here's a link to some changes. You'd be suprised how much adding a word somewhere changes things.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/B ... /long.html


Edit: not sure if this is the whole list of changes. This site still has work being done on it.

Bond...James Bond wrote:

twinkie wrote:I was reading online somewhere that the original Book of Mormon was altered. Is this true?

Yes. Here's a link to some changes. You'd be suprised how much adding a word somewhere changes things.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/B ... /long.html


Edit: not sure if this is the whole list of changes. This site still has work being done on it.

I don't have time to look over the site Bond listed, but I've found that http://josephlied.com/changes.html has a pretty decent compilation.

Bryan Inks wrote:I don't have time to look over the site Bond listed, but I've found that http://josephlied.com/changes.html has a pretty decent compilation.

That's a better and more indepth site than the one I used. Good finds Binks.

Thanks for the links! They are both very helpful.

Ha Ha Ha. Nort kills me.

that's the testimony shakeing evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't true? Grammer? Lets not look at the theology and profound teachings, lets look at whether or not the word "son of" was used in describeing God in the Book of Mormon, or whether to use was or were.

God taught Joseph how to translate, but it was up to a farmboy to dress it in language we could understand. Proper english and grammer arent exactly high on the list of most of the people around back then, just read some of the letters from that time. Emma spoke about how Joseph could hardly compose a proper letter to her.

God works through prophets, and prophets have faults, includeing grammatical ones.

Gazelam wrote:Ha Ha Ha. Nort kills me.

that's the testimony shakeing evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't true? Grammer? Lets not look at the theology and profound teachings, lets look at whether or not the word "son of" was used in describeing God in the Book of Mormon, or whether to use was or were.

God taught Joseph how to translate, but it was up to a farmboy to dress it in language we could understand. Proper english and grammer arent exactly high on the list of most of the people around back then, just read some of the letters from that time. Emma spoke about how Joseph could hardly compose a proper letter to her.

God works through prophets, and prophets have faults, includeing grammatical ones.

There's some fairly interesting ones in the thing I posted Gaz, which are about word changes. Adding a "Son" to some sentences really changes things.

Edit: If the archaelogy, history, DNA, and other physical evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't mess with your testimony, I doubt a few word changes will.

Gazelam wrote:God taught Joseph how to translate, but it was up to a farmboy to dress it in language we could understand.

Well that farmboy sure could say, "And it came to pass." a lot.

The majority of the Book of Mormon that isn't quoted from the KJV reads like a farmboy wrote it alright.

I think that Reformed Egyptian was to Egyptian, as Ebonics are to English.

The Book of Mormon seems like some kind of Ebonics primer.

UTLM has a couple of useful links:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm#Major

When you also consider the methodology in which the Book of Mormon was "translated", it leaves absolutely no room for error. Last week, i had explained to someone (see thread i made on the blatant morg) about how it was translated. She didn't believe me, since it wasent what she was taught. Even though i cited exactly who and where you could find it. So gaz, i ask you. With how it was translated, how do you account for SO many errors? I could honestly let go of a few errors due to type setting. that's acceptable for the time period. But would god allow for such errors? he is trying to set up the most correct book ever writen. One would think that as the catholics put it, god is ineffible. And he would expect that of his mouthpeice.