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
|