Gazelam wrote:Joseph began the translation useing both the Urim and Thummim and his seerstone. I suppose he preferred the seerstone from the accounts of the witnesses. The use of these was basicly to instruct Joseph in translation. The words would appear, and then their translation. This went on intil Joseph no longer needed the stone and could read and translate himself.
Joseph was known to go back and make changes to revelations all the time. This is no different in the translation of the Book of Mormon. If a change can make a passage more clear, why not do it, hes the prophet! It is his responsibility to make the gospel easy to understand. If he goe sback and re-reads the text, and sees a way to make a point more clear by changeing a word or two, what does it really matter? You'll find more changes if you look at foreign language trranslation I'm sure you'll find even more changes. The fact is, there were no changes of real importance.
What I find even more funny is born again christians who use this arguement against the church while claiming the Bible is the perfect word of God, but don't blink an eye at useing a New World translation over the King James, when in the New Worlds translation Christ is changed into Gods only Son as opposed to only Begotten. Now theres a doctrinal change that matters!
If i remember correctly, there where copies found of the Bible from 4th century AD in original greek.(which would have been an accurate language for the period) The translation of which was found to be something like 98.5% correct comparitivly to the Bible we still have today(KJV if i remember correctly). the differences where mostly names and small word changes.(which i should start a thread on, since some of these name changes are rather interesting) I am by no means saying that its the word of god. i think it is an interesting philosophical/theological book. But i do not hold it to any esteem as something i want to follow.
We also have to remember, that the Book of Mormon was supposed to be the first book that was dictated by god. and as i said in my earlier post, god is supposed to be infallable. would he word things the way they would be better received? or is it more likely that he would word things exactly as he means to? Going off the witness accounts, the words would not translate from joseph unless they where exactly as dictated by the "spiritual light". it leaves absolutly no room whatsoever to deviate from what was given him by god himself. using the christian methodology of thought, god does things exactly as he means to. So any changes would have been
literaly against the direct word and command of god!
As far as making changes to personal "revelations" that he received. that i can see as a matter of opinion on 2 things. either A: he was modifying things the way god wanted him to. or B: they didn't work/pan out and so he had to change them so they would be better accepted since he was making them up to begin with.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew