Scriptural Changes and Errors

prepared by Don R. Hender

The Objective Perspective

When one begins to speak of 'errors' in the scriptures the objective approach is to consider the case of all 'scriptural writings'. Those who target such as just the Book of Mormon have biased their attack by ignoring all such scritural publications in the world or either they are atheists and are attacking all religion. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon stand to represent themselves as scriptural texts. Both represent themselves as having been written and compiled by Prophets, Scribes, Translators, Editors, and Publishists who have prepared the texts in printed form to be available to the people of the world. In that they are writings inspired of God by prophets, they are to be taken as 'the Word of God to man' via these avenues which envolve the handling of them by imperfect men.

A number of Religious Groups have taken the position that the Holy Bible is without errors, that is, it is 100% correct and error-free and infalable in all of its content. This position is easily open to critism as since just the initial publication of the King James Bible of 1611, over 50,000 changes/errors have been made in the King James text alone and this does not even begin to consider the various 'revised and new and improved' editions of the text through out the world and in various translations, interpretations, printings, publications, and so forth. Of the Bible, Joseph Smith Jr., a latter day prophet, has stated:

    "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." ~ Eighth Article of Faith

    "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." TPJS, p. 327

    From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled." TPJS, pp. 9-10

Even the Book of Mormon has in its own record stated positions of qualification regarding both the Bible and the Book of Mormon itself:

Of the Bible

    "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. ~ 1 Nephi 13:28 [25-29]; Mormon 8:33; Moses 1:41

Of the Book of Mormon

    "And if there be faults [in the Book of Mormon record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault, nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire." ~ Mormon 8:17 [17-18]

    "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment—seat of Christ." ~ Book of Mormon Title Page written by Moroni

Now by comparision over the some 400 years since the first publication of the King James version of the Bible (1611 to present), there have been over 50,000 changes (errors) in the text. By comparison, over the some less than 200 years since the publication of the Book of Mormon (1830 to present) there have been over 5,000 such changes (errors). In both cases the over whelming majority have been that of publication, language, spelling, punctuation and etc. type of error/changes. A few have been in both cases such as in wording and phrasing which were done not to change meaning but to clarify meaning. Any 'real errors' in both texts are but few and even yet unchanged. For example of the day the sun stood still in the Bible, it is still written that the 'sun stood still', though science has proven that it is the earth that rotates and which revolves around the sun and so relatively the sun does not move but earth's rotation must have been what was really halted for the time the sun appeared to 'stand still'.

Now For the Real Errors

Casting asside the errors of publication and handling are there 'real error' in the text of the scriptures? And if so, though they be such, we must attach the disclaimer that they are the 'faults', 'mistakes', 'ignorant interpretations' and 'errors' of men.

In this respect, I humbly submit that there are a few, which are in the Book of Mormon, though they be the 'mistakes of men' and NOT OF GOD. I will divide these into two categories, (1) those which perhaps are the faults of modern man, and (2) those which may very well be that attributed to the ancient prepares of the Book of Mormon or at least contributed to by them. Though these may not be so easily and readily determined, even so shall I address them as such.

Errors of the Ancient Book of Mormon:

'Nephi's Errors of Abridgement': Though truely not an error of the Book of Mormon, because of the 'Errors of Condensation' which skews reality into artificially compacted and often distorted appearance, perhaps one of the 'errors' that ought to be looked at here is that of the abridgment of 'TIME' in the Book of Mormon. This first particularly comes to the fore front in ' Nephi's Small Plate Record Abridged Account of his family's departure from Jerusalem and Journey to the land of Promise.

Due to Nephi's liberty to report but what he considers 'spiritually credical events' rather than to present a well developed accounting of time dating in his Small Plate Abridgment, High Level Book of Mormon Scholars have mis-judged the passage of time to cause Book of Mormon Critics to call out an Achronistic Error in the Book of Mormon. In reality there is no such in the Book of Mormon but such as Elder George Reynold's fameous 'time line', which is even today still used in the Book of Mormon footnotes, it can appear that Nephi and family are still in the Valley of Lemuel and also at the First land of Bountiful at the same time. Jeremiah is not imprisoned until about the 8th year of King Zedekiah which Nephi references upon the return to the valley of Lemuel after the collection of the family of Ishmael from Jerusalem (Nephi 7:14). Then Nephi reports that it was an 8 year journey in the wilderness until the joint party of Lehi came to the site of the First Bountiful. The quick reading of the skewed abridgment leads George Reynolds to mark but 8 years of time passage from the time Lehi first leaves Jerusalem until Lehi's party reached Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:4). In truth that is what causes the achronistic appearance. In actuallity, Lehi's party first spends about 8 years in the Valley of Lemuel until about the time of the immediate events leading up to the destrution of Jerusalem before they leave that valley to further journey in the wilderness another additional 8 years before their arrival at Bountiful. That is a total of 16 years, not 8 as George Reynolds accessed it to be and what is still there in the Book of Mormon as a 'suggested' timeline.

Thus it is not Nephi's error, but an error caused by Reynold's timeline, and it is not a Book of Mormon error at all. But it could be considered an 'Error of Condensation' upon Nephi's part not to give a clear dating outline to his extremely highly abridge account of events, which could easily lead one into making such conclusion in error as has George Reynold and is still published in the Book of Mormon today as such 'scholarship notes'. In my Book of Mormon analysis, I have changed those first set of suggested dates in 1 Nephi and the first part of 2 Nephi to accomodate the truth of the passage of time rather than merely accepting the 'erroneously suggested dates' scholarly footnoted in the book.

Is It Bellows or Is It Bellowses?: Language is an odd matter. There are times when the right and proper grammatically correct word does not fit nor comply with the actual intent and meaning of the word or phrase meaning. One such example of this 'no win' situation is found in 1 Nephi 17:11. When translating the plates relative to when Nephi was speaking of smelting ore to make tools in order to build a ship, the word written as printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is that of 'bellowses'. Now in the English language there is but one form of the word which can be either 'singular' or 'plural' in meaning. And that is 'bellows'. If is but one, it is a 'bellows'. If is many, 8, 9, or 10, the word is still 'billows'. That is, 'I have ten bellows' or 'I have one bellows.'

Now in the common imagery of today one visualizes a blacksmith operating but a single 'bellows'. But Nephi recorded that 'I, Nephi, did make bellowses' as it is stated in the 1830 edition. And even though it is grammarically incorrect it does convey the meaning that 'Nephi did make multiple bellowses' that is he made more than one. In such efforts to be 'grammarically correct' all editions of the Book of Mormon since the 1830 edition has exchanged 'bellowses' to being 'a bellows'. And now thus even down to today we have the misconception which the 'corrected English' does convey as compared to the accurate intent and purpose of the 'incorrect English' that Nephi made 'bellowses.

Now the facts of the matter are these. Nephi did not make just one single bellows - 'a bellows' as recorded in the Book of Mormon today in order to be grammatically correct. He did as he stated he did, 'I, Nephi, did make bellowses'. The ancient Biblical methodology of smelting ore in the days and times of Nephi was that which is properly conveyed where a number of 'bellowses' are all in use about a 'pit smelter'. The 'bellowses' are foot bellows, one per each foot. And indeed, Nephi required the aid of his brothers plural in so smelting and making of metal tools, for a number of his brothers would be required to be about the single 'pit smelter' as any number of bellows works would simultaneously operate their foot bellowses to blow upon the fire of the 'pit smelter'.

King Benjamin or King Mosiah?: Another 'careless' matter of writing in the abridgment of Mormon of the Large Plates of Nephi into his personally prepared 'golden plate' record is that matter of 'King Benjamin or King Mosiah' which often crops up in anti-Mormon criticism of the Book of Mormon. This confusion may have been further added to by the lost 116 pages which caused Joseph Smith, under the instrution of the Lord, to use Nephi's Small Plate Abridgment to repalce those lost pages as well as likely other such 'skipped over' matterial until the time of the Book of Mosiah.

Without going into the complex of detail, King Benjamin, who as Prophet and King, steps down as King, bestowing that upon his son Mosiah II. King Benjamin lives for at least 3 more years still acting as the Prophet but no longer King. It appears that in that highly abridged interim, the King Mosiah authorizes a party led by one Ammon, a descendant of Zarahemla, to seek out the fate of a Nephite group who had attempted to reclaim their lands in the Land of Nephi. This Ammon leaves at such a time when Mosiah is King but Benjamin is still living as the Prophet of God. Unaware of the death of the Prophet Benjamin and former King, Ammon tells King Limhi that there is a seer of God named Benjamin that can translate the record an exploring group found in the land of Desolation. Now in reality in the spread out time since Ammon left Zarahemla, the Prohet and former King Benjamin had died and he who was then the prophet was the new appoint son of King Benjamin, King Mosiah.

Since early readers of the Book of Mormon readily understood that it was actually Mosiah who then at the time held the power of Prophet and Seer, decided to change the early Book of Mormon naming of King Benjamin as that Prophet and Seer by Ammon to Ammon stating it was King Mosiah when he spoke to King Limhi. Mormon's abridgment never did make that clear, at least in the Book of Mosiah, that Ammon did not know of Benjamin's death, so he referred to the Prophet and Seer as Benjamin at a time when Benjamin had died and Mosiah his son was then the Prohet and Seer. It would of course be Mosiah who did translate the 24 gold plates of Ether as so promised by Ammon that a Prophet and Seer of God would do so. Rather than to attempt to sort out the Benjamin instead of Mosiah reference by Ammon in the first Books of Mormon, the name was later edited from being Benjamin to just Mosiah by Ammon and who was actually the one who did so translate the 24 gold plates of Ether.

And thus we have the 'error' of Benjamin and Mosiah, which again really is NOT. Ammon had told Limhi that Benjamin held that power to translate considering that as far as he knew Benjamin was still the living Prohet and Seer. By the time that Limhi and Ammon made their way 'back' to Zarahemla, Benjamin had died and Mosiah his son was the new Prophet and Seer who actually did the translation. In an effort to have the Book of Mormon more simple to follow, well meaning Book of Mormon scholars just made the reference to that Prophet and Seer be Mosiah in all cases. An ancient error of not including in the abridgment the further details might be sited. But in truth there was nothing wrong with Ammon stating the Prophet and Seer to be Benjamin, whom he thought to still be alive. The conflict only becomes seen by those who think themselves smarter that the text to have known that Mosiah was that Prophet and Seer who translanted Limhi's found plates and Benjamin who had died was not.

The Tale of One/Two Cities, Aaron: Again the Book of Mormon is a Highly Condensed Abridgment. It never does give a full and complete layout of all the lands and cities and their make up. In the national lands of Zarahemla, if one is not careful concluding upon a proper scheme of the lay of the land, they can readily fall into the opinion that there were two cities of Aaron when really there was only one. As the time of Alma and Alma the younger developed, with them being the prophet head of the Church one after the other, the land became developed and divided into what was stated to be seven churches, or there were seven main and destinct provinces, each have their own local Chief Judge over that province and its associated cities, towns and lands.

The Book of Mormon never does fully disclose exactly what constituted those Seven Provincial Church and Judge-Ship domains. Alma the younger's missionary efforts gives some hints. The Local province and Church of Zarahamela was one which was located in the center of the land. Gideon, Melek and Ammonihah appear to be such of three other of the seven Provincial Church lands. The two Provincial Church lands with their own Chief Judge to the west of the central province of Zarahemla, where Melek and Ammonihah. And Gideon was just up the east canyon valley area from Zarahemla.

Having been expelled from the land region of Ammonihah by its Chief Judge, Alma determine to depart that land and journey over to that land whose Chief city was Aaron. Now Just were was Aaron? The only location given for the city of Aaron in the Book of Mormon is upon the east of Zarahemla even beyond the valley of Gideon. Had Alma exhausted the Regional Provincial Church lands to the west of Zarahamela and next decided to travel over to the eastern such Provincial Church land Regions or had Alma determine to go so some near more localized city of Aaron. Many consider that Alma was merely traveling to a more locally located city of Aaron and when the city of Aaron in the east is identified in the Book of Mormon, they determine that there must be two Aarons and the Book of Mormon's 'Condensation Error of Abridgment' just doesn't make that clear.

Other such as myself who has preceived that the greater national lands of the nation of Zarahemla was divided into Seven Provincial Regions each with a Church and State head, with such as the more localized central province of Zarahemla, flank on the west by such as the Province of Melek and Ammonihah, and further flank to the other direction by such as perhaps Manti, Gideon, Aaron [including Jershon], and Antionum; am of the opinion that there was but one city of Aaron and that Alma was taking his missionary efforts from the west to the east, the western provinces being concluded. This is just a summize as to the seven churches/provinces being Zarahemla, Gideon, Melek, Ammonihah, Aaron, Antionum and Manti. But according to this line of reason the Book of Mormon is not lacking in not telling of 'two' Aarons, for there was but one Aaron which the highly abridged nature of the text leaves to one's imagination. And those imaginations often conceive of a land much less limited in size, scope and diminsion than that the truth of an expanded condensation of an abridgment might in reality convey.

New York, New York, New York - Zaramenla, Zarahemla, Zarahemla: Another Book of Mormon 'error' which seems to prevail is that relationship which I term the 'New York, New York, New York' syndrome. Once upon a time in America, when things were still rather small, there was a New York City, a New York County and a New York State. And mail could well be addressed after a house number and street name line by a line such as city, county, state of New York, New York, New York. Well in the nation of Zarahemla there was a parallel condition. In the very central heart of the national land of Zarahemla was a city located midway up the Sidon river upon its west bank called Zarahemla, and about this very localized city of Zarahamela was other such towns and cities one of which was Minon to the south and another unnamed city to the north with other villages and towns round about which was all considered to be the Regional Provincial land of Zarahemla. Then in addition to this single provincial land of Zarahamela, there were seven other such provincial regional lands such as Gideon, Melek, Ammonihah, Aaron, Antionum, and Manti. And all one time provincial regions were all a part of the nation of Zarahemla. Thus if one was to write a letter to one living in the nation of Zarahemal, one might write one line consisting of the name of the person to whom the letter was to, then one might on a second line provide the house number and street name of that person's residence, and then on the third line one would include the city/town name, the province name, and the nation name. Thus on the third line one might find such as 'Zarahemla, Zarahemla, Zarahemla, indicating the city of Zarahemla, in the province of Zarahemla, in the nation of Zarahemla.

Now of course as this nation further developed other such provincial division might also come into existence such as Bountiful, Jershon and etc. But once upon a time there were only seven such provincial regions in the nation of Zarahemla. And one of those provinces in the nation of Zarahemla was the lesser Regional Province of Zarahemla. And one of the many cities of that province of Zarahemla was also a city of Zarahemla. Some seem confused by such reference to Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon, as the Book of Mormon in its abridgment is not always clear as to which 'Zarahemla' is being spoken of, the city, the province or indeed the entire nation of Zarahemla. And perhaps that is a weakness or even a 'fault' in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Understanding the Fate of Antionum and Hill Onidah - One Or Two?: Now the Provincial Church Region of Antionum was first established by a man whose name was Zoram and thus the people of that region were called Zoramites. The abridged Book of Mormon never does clarify if these were the descendants of that one time Zoram, the servant of Laban in the Book of Mormon, way back when. It may very well not be and then again in general it may. But for sure the people of the land region of Antionum considered themselves united under one Chief Judge over the land, its various cities, towns and lands and they identified themselves as Zoramites.

The Church, its leadership and Chief Judge, and therefore it people were generally considered to be in a state of corruption as to its religeous beliefs and practices. And Alma was fearful, least their close proxcemety to the Lamanites might further tempt them to join with the Lamanites. Alma's mission must thus be considered as half in failure and half in sucess. Half of the people, the poor Zoramites, listened to Alma and re-established themselves in the true Church and as Nephites. The other half, the local corrupt church leaders, the rich and the governing Zoramites further rebelled and did join themselves to the Lamanites.

And here we have a weakness in the Book of Mormon telling. The poor half who returned to the true Church and to being Nephites were expelled from the land and under the direction of Alma, they removed themselves to the land of Jershon. And to that extent of events and time one could say that Jershon became the 'new province' of the Zoramites of Antionum. But as for the actual land of Antionum and the corrupt Zoramites who remained there, they fell away to the Lamanites. That is they succeeded from the 'Nephite Union' and from the nation of 'Zarahemla'. They did not leave there land of Antionum, rather the land of Antionum became a part of the land of the Lamanites.

Again because the Book of Mormon is a highly abridged text, when it states that Moroni regained all of the land of the Nephites, many consider that to mean that Moroni took back the land of Antionum. That is he drove the Zoramites out of their land of Antionum and made it again a part of the national lands of Zarahemla. The Book of Mormon never states this. In fact the supporting evidence in the Book of Mormon would suggest just the opposite. That is, once the Zoramites of Antionum joined with the Lamanites, meaning also the whole of the land became a part of the Lamanite nation, the provincial lands of Antionum never did return again to be considered the land(s) of the Nephite nation of Zarahemla. And in fact much of the Lamanite/Zoramite attack upon the Nephites were based out of and a party to the land of Antionum.

One very pointed example of this is the case of the 'hill Onidah'. In Alma 32:4 the hill Onidah is were a great multitude of the Zoramites, mostly the poor, came to hear the preachings of Alma. Later in Alma 47:5, the place Onidah was then a part of the Lamanite lands and referred to as 'the place of arms'. This may well be reflective of those events which divided the Zoramites and where the ruling Zoramites took up arms to expell the poor of the Zoramites out of the land of Antionum. Because this place and hill of Onidah is stated to be associated with the Land of the Lamanites, many a quick read Book of Mormon scholar will conclude that there are two 'Onidahs'. They do not consided that one the Zormanite province of Antionum succeeded from the 'Nephite Union' of Zarahemla, no longer was the land of Antionum Nephite land. It in fact had become Lamanite land.

What seem to be significant, regardless of the meaning of the word Onidah, much of the fate of the Zormanites and their lands revolved about Onidah. Alma preached and converted the poor there who decided to remain and combine with the Nephites. It was apparently there where the main thrust of expulsion of those 'poor Zoramiites' occurred as is ws the place of arms with the implication of forcing the 'poor Zormanites' out of the land and calling the Zoramite people of Antionum to arms against their brethern and the Nephites. And then also, at one point when the Zoramites/Lamanites tired of being forced to go up and fight against the Nephites a rebellion of 'not being subjected to go against the Nephites' took place there as well (Alma 47:6).

The name 'Onidah' is of Native American Indian origin. It is given to mean 'the looked-for one' or 'people of the stone'. There are the Onidah Indians and place names about the American northeast even today. As to it referring to the Stone of Israel, that is the Christ, and the one true God to be looked-for, I leave that to one's imagination. It certainly became a place in the Book of Mormon where the people of Antionum either looked to Christ as God and the Nephite true Church of not in compliance to the teachings of Alma.

Is It Moroni Or Is It Nephihah?: At one point it does appear that even Mormon himself does make an error according to failed abridgment logic. Make an highly condensed abridgment from a large body of material is not easy task. And keeping all things straight and consistant with the enlarge facts of the matter when condensing them down to a shrunken state is not always attainable without making some type of error of consideration, inclusion, or arrangement. During the wars of the Lamanites with the Nephites as over seen by Captain Moroni in the book of Alma, much was happening. What happened generally over all and what happened piece by piece and in what order of the events of wars is not an easy task. I would think that many a historian of such as the World Wars or of any such lengthly war of any size does have difficultly in messing it all together in a proper frame of events and occurances.

There is one such 'hiccup' to be found in Alma 51:25-26:

    "But it came to pass that Amalichiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it.
    "And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah [Moroni], and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and they city of Mulek, all which were on the east borders by the seashore."
    ~ Alma 51:25-26

Now some Book of Mormon scholars who have noted this matter excuse the instance by making the assumption that there were two cities by the name of Nephihah. Now in the overall scheme of the Lamanites wars with Captain Moroni, at one time the city of Nephihah does fall into the hands of the Lamanites. And I am sure that Mormon knew that over all the city of Nephihah was one of the Nephite cities that was taken into possession by the Lamanites in the war(s) against Captain Moroni. But it was not under the command of 'King Amalickiah' that Nephihah did fall into the possession of the Lamanites. It was rather later after the death of Amalickiah, when the brother of Amalickiah took the leadership of the Lamanites that the city of Nephihah was finally taken into possession by the Lamanites. Further, the city of Nephihah was not on the east borders by the seashore. Rather Nephihah was inland upon the plains of Nephihah between the city of Moroni which was by the seashore and the city of Aaron which was located along the foothills of the forested eastern range of mountains.

Now indeed if this is 'Mormon's error' one ought to certainly understand it as Mormon had much to attempt to keep staight as to the facts which he was attempting to abridge. Indeed in the list of cities of the east over the many years of war, the city of Nephihah was one of the Nephite cities that would fall into the possession of the Lamanites. And thus it could have been on one of Mormon's overall lists of fallen cities and so crept it way in at this juncture.

And there is a simple and easy 'fix' to this listing which lists Nephihah as one of 'all of which were on the east borders by the seashore'. For there is one obvious missing city from this listing of Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid, and Mulek. And that is the city of Moroni. One need but insert the name 'Moroni' for the name 'Nephihah' and the list becomes both complete and correct. If it is an error by Mormon, one can only considered the time of compilation of proofing which must have gone into the 'rough written copy' before it was ready to be engraven upon metal plates. How do you correct an engraving once it has been engraved. Mormon knew that Nephihah was one of the Nephite cities which were taken, though it would be later relative to this instance in time. Had Mormon strugled in his proofreading from the various records he was compiling from. Did one of those listing include Nephihah? Did Mormon thus recognize a listing of his own writing which he had prepared to next be engraven and notice it lack Nephihah. And then had he added it out of exact context but in consideration of overall correctness. Perhaps we will never know and perhaps even Mormon may not remember.

And then there is always the later period possiblity of later transcription and compliation at the time of translation and transciption of the Book of Mormon during the days of Joseph Smith, and who and why it may have been so listed then. In whatever case. This is a case of human 'fault' and or 'weakness' and one which the Lord warns us against in finding fault with the words of God because of the weaknesses of men in the matters of processing the material for publication.

A Take on the 'Modern Errors'

Often the Book of Mormon has been 'changed' in order to clarify or explain an item. The preparers and scribes of the Bible consistantly did this as a matter of their compilation and transcribing operations. When Joseph Smith adds and clarifies that the 'waters of Judah' are a referrence to the waters of Baptism, that is just what it is, a clarification or explanation. And if Joseph Smith makes a 'change' of clarification from such as 'the mother of God' to being 'the mother of the Son of God', it is not a matter of changing something that is 'wrong' to something that is 'right' for when the truth is known concerning the nature of God, both are correct, though perhaps to the common mind one is more 'reader friendly' and/or a matter of giving more complet information than the other may be or do. And when those whose own limited concept of God is what they chose to judge the Book of Mormon upon, then they are but mind bent upon there own interpretation of God already. One fact is that Jesus is and was the same being as Jehovah of the Old Testament and in this Mary is and can be said to be 'the Mother of God'. On the other hands, Jesus who is the same as Jehovah, is not his own father. He was born, selected, chosen, and ordained of God his Father to act in the stead of the Father in all things. He is the Firstborn son of God the Father of Spirits in the Spirit and he is the Only Begotten of the Father after the manner of the flesh. And thus indeed Mary is the mother of the Son of God in that respect as well as the Mother of God in the other respect. Joseph Smith was not makding a 'correction' of an 'error'. He was further eloboratng and clarifying. This also has been done by the preparers of the Biblical texts.

Science and Religion Errors

It is not the purpose of this page to sort through the many matters of what science says verses what religion or the Book of Mormon may say. One could argue matters about the horse in America, and the 'Curly Horse' would be a good place to begin. But because science is not able to find or deduce the presence of horse in America during Book of Mormon times is of little matter. On the one hand, science has just not found that yet and on the other such evidence is past and not longer available. This is the same with such as the elephant.

And as to other religious matters as the flood of Noah, the dividing of the land in the days of Peleg, or the determination of the age of things by carbon dating; all these are subjective and many act as arguments against the Bible and Religion in general and not merely the Book of Mormon. Science is what science is, a test tube labratory of attempting to discover truth. It is incomplete and still growing and learning. And what science has suffered due to the false religion treatments of it is not to be considered the same as the relationship between true science and true religion.

Over Whelming Majority of 'Errors'

As with the Bible and its over some 50,000 changes from the original 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the over 5,000 changes from the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon have been of the sort of grammer, spelling, punctuation, word usage and the like. These range from publication type errors to those which have evovled through time within the developments of the status of the language and is daily appropriate meaning and usage. To argue against these in the Book of Mormon is to also agrue against these as also found in the development of today's King James Bible compared to its 1611 edition. And for the most part, these are the such as are a matter of dealing with in the inperfections of man. And the people who so nit-pick at such things to count every 'change' as an 'error' are those who live to find fault rather than to look for the good in life and others. To constantly search for the negative even when the negative is not even really there, is an unhealthly what of life and living. People who do so but suffer the consequences of such behavior as it wears them down to life and living.

The Book of Mormon

    "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." ~ Joseph Smith

As to he who 'nitpicks' the real meaning conveyed by this last quote is lost upon deaf ears. Joseph Smith is not speaking of language and presentation perfection. What Joseph Smith is speaking of is that the very 'precepts' of God are most correctly presented in the Book of Mormon than they are so presented in any other text on earth. And if one were to study and live by these precepts, then one would come closer to God than by abiding by that which is taught in any such less correct book.

rev. July 17, 2013