Mormoninformation.com

[_GoodK]

I have been bored with this DB lately (and the internet in general, for that matter) and found myself browsing the Mormoninformation.com link. Shades, is this your website?

Something that really struck me ,and frankly I am surprised I hadn't heard it before, was Nephi 12:18 and the changes made to it. Jesus to Messiah

I asked my Dad about it and he said that (along with all the other arguments by "anti-mormons" who prefer to be ill-informed) this has been addressed by competent scholars conclusively. He pointed me towards Roper and and Skousen. I have to go over to his house and borrow Skousen's Critical Text and he wasn't specific with me regarding how they have explained it, but so far this looks like a compelling argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I would be very interested to the hear the opinions of those that have encountered this specific issue in depth, specifically, the good Doctor.

[_Who Knows]

That's easy. I can come up with an apologetic on the spot:

Joseph Smith saw the word 'messiah' in the gold plates, but silly him, he said "Jesus Christ" - since really, they mean the same thing.

The Book of Mormon is correct, but the man who translated it, unfortunately, was not perfect.

Case dismissed.

[_Dr. Shades]

I have been bored with this DB lately (and the internet in general, for that matter) and found myself browsing the Mormoninformation.com link. Shades, is this your website?

Yes, it is.

I asked my Dad about it and he said that (along with all the other arguments by "anti-mormons" who prefer to be ill-informed) this has been addressed by competent scholars conclusively.

That's what Mormons always say. It's almost never true, however.

I would be very interested to the hear the opinions of those that have encountered this specific issue in depth, specifically, the good Doctor.

It's pretty simple. Joseph was in a hurry to make up for the lost 116 pages, and he got a little sloppy and called Him "Jesus" even though Jesus wasn't scheduled to be born--and thereafter named by his mother--for a few more centuries.

[_Reformed Egyptian]

I have been bored with this DB lately (and the internet in general, for that matter) and found myself browsing the Mormoninformation.com link. Shades, is this your website?

Something that really struck me ,and frankly I am surprised I hadn't heard it before, was Nephi 12:18 and the changes made to it. Jesus to Messiah

I asked my Dad about it and he said that (along with all the other arguments by "anti-mormons" who prefer to be ill-informed) this has been addressed by competent scholars conclusively. He pointed me towards Roper and and Skousen. I have to go over to his house and borrow Skousen's Critical Text and he wasn't specific with me regarding how they have explained it, but so far this looks like a compelling argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I would be very interested to the hear the opinions of those that have encountered this specific issue in depth, specifically, the good Doctor.

The easy answer to 1 Nephi 12:18 is that Joseph used his own words for the ideas and concepts found upon the plates, it was not a 'word for word' "translation".

The "greater miracle" of course is that Joseph, the unlearned school boy, had the words and capacity given to him via 'revelation' and the 'gift of God' to write out the Book of Mormon. Of course he'd use "Jesus Christ" for this is whom Nephi obviously meant. Only later was it changed to the Messiah to be more in harmony with what Nephi would have actually 'said' back in the day (but again, since we're not quoting Nephi 'word for word' this change is a-ok).

Jesus = Messiah = Jesus. 1+1=3. Don't mind the man behind the curtain. All is well in Zion (until of course the machines drill down and annihilate everyone a la Matrix).

Joseph Smith was also of course inspired to copy significant portions of the KJV of the Bible (known Bible errors and all), to save his 'eyes' (not sure he himself ever said this or that anyone ever suggested he copied the KJV other than modern antis and modern apologists) and also because he was inspired to do so and of course because it was NOT a word for word translation (despite the testimony of those who helped him translate).

I so give it as my un-testimony that these things are true, so help me Rod, amen.

[_GoodK]

Yes, it is.

I'd be surprised if Dr. Shades is behind this[mormoninformation.com]; he is supposedly somewhat erudite and careful (from what I've heard -- I don't know much about him from direct experience...

Well at least you have the reputation of being "somewhat erudite" :)

It's pretty simple. Joseph was in a hurry to make up for the lost 116 pages, and he got a little sloppy and called Him "Jesus" even though Jesus wasn't scheduled to be born--and thereafter named by his mother--for a few more centuries.

It's funny because I said to him, "the only possible explanation I can think of is if Joseph Smith saw the word Messiah, but thought Jesus and wrote Jesus by mistake."

Is that really the official answer? Holy cow...

[_Dr. Shades]

The easy answer to 1 Nephi 12:18 is that Joseph used his own words for the ideas and concepts found upon the plates, it was not a 'word for word' "translation".

The problem with that particular Mopologetic is that Sorenson himself discovered, and documented, the textual evidence which amply proves that it was a "tight" translation. In other words, Joseph didn't substitute his own words for the various concepts; he merely read aloud what was written on the seer stone--or what was written on Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Found, take your pick.

BESIDES, if it wasn't a "tight" translation, then Joseph wouldn't have had any use whatsoever for a seer stone, a Urim & Thummim, or whatever (if he wasn't actually reading anything written on them, what was the point of having them?). For that matter, he wouldn't have had any use for the plates themselves.

Also, a quick-and-easy proof for a "tight" translation is that Joseph Smith used the transliterated words "curelom" and "cumom" directly instead of substituting his own English words and concepts for those two beasts.

[_Doctor Steuss]

One apologist's take:

Of course, the critic doesn't stop here. He pans the "contradictions" that occur between the 1830 version of 1 Nephi 12:18 and the current version, and 2 Nephi 10:3. 1 Nephi 12 is part of a remarkable story in which Nephi receives the same vision his father Lehi had previously received, and it is quoted correctly in the Changes article. However, the argument that Christ's name is not actually revealed for the first time until 2 Nephi 10:3 carries no weight, and for more than one reason. Firstly, to the Christian, "the Messiah" and "Jesus Christ" are one and the same. Secondly, it is Nephi who is having the vision recounted in 1 Nephi 12, and Jacob his brother who is having a vision in 2 Nephi 10, so the critic is trying to use the visions of two men to point out a "discrepancy." This smacks, frankly, of the old saw about the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant based on the part of the animal they are touching.

Lastly, the Book of Mormon is a translation. Since "Jesus Christ" is actually the Greek name for the Messiah, and not the Hebrew of Aramaic form of the same, then one could conceivable argue that the presence of the name "Jesus Christ" in the Book of Mormon text is anachronistic. However, in terms of translation, it means the same thing as whatever words were on the plates from which Joseph Smith derived his translation. In all honesty, Joseph Smith could have left the name of Christ in 1 Nephi 12:18 as he originally translated it, and it would not have made a difference.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/B ... itics.html

[_Dr. Shades]

However, the argument that Christ's name is not actually revealed for the first time until 2 Nephi 10:3 carries no weight, and for more than one reason. Firstly, to the Christian, "the Messiah" and "Jesus Christ" are one and the same.

The problem with that Mopologetic is that "Jesus" was His given name. If Smith had stopped at "Christ"--which, I believe, is a derivative of the Greek word "Christos," or "Annonted"--there wouldn't've been a problem.

Secondly, it is Nephi who is having the vision recounted in 1 Nephi 12, and Jacob his brother who is having a vision in 2 Nephi 10, so the critic is trying to use the visions of two men to point out a "discrepancy."

This Mopologetic falls flat since Nephi documented his vision on his small plates, the same ones that passed into Jacob's possession. Jacob, spiritual leader of the Nephites, would've been well aware of the details of Nephi's vision long before he had his own vision.

So yes, it's a discrepancy.

Lastly, the Book of Mormon is a translation. Since "Jesus Christ" is actually the Greek name for the Messiah, and not the Hebrew of Aramaic form of the same, then one could conceivable argue that the presence of the name "Jesus Christ" in the Book of Mormon text is anachronistic. However, in terms of translation, it means the same thing as whatever words were on the plates from which Joseph Smith derived his translation. In all honesty, Joseph Smith could have left the name of Christ in 1 Nephi 12:18 as he originally translated it, and it would not have made a difference.

As I pointed out earlier, this would only be true if Smith had left off the name "Jesus," His given name, and only included His "Christ" title.

[_Doctor Steuss]

However, the argument that Christ's name is not actually revealed for the first time until 2 Nephi 10:3 carries no weight, and for more than one reason. Firstly, to the Christian, "the Messiah" and "Jesus Christ" are one and the same.

The problem with that Mopologetic is that "Jesus" was His given name. If Smith had stopped at "Christ"--which, I believe, is a derivative of the Greek word "Christos," or "Annonted"--there wouldn't've been a problem.

If I were to put on my apologist hat, I would point out that rooted in older Jewish traditions, the Shem ha-Mephorash was identified as the Son of G-d and in some traditions as Metatron (which is conceptually Jesus -- and the fact that Jews leaned away from the equivalent usage derived from synthronos due to the potential of containing Christian connotations in later years gives it additional credence, in my opinion), and as such, it is possible that Nephi here recorded the Shem ha-Mephorash, or a variant thereof, and Joseph translated it into what it more commonly became known as during later Christian generations.

Or something like that.

[_Dr. Shades]

If I were to put on my apologist hat, I would point out that rooted in older Jewish traditions, the Shem ha-Mephorash was identified as the Son of G-d and in some traditions as Metatron (which is conceptually Jesus -- and the fact that Jews leaned away from the equivalent usage derived from synthronos due to the potential of containing Christian connotations in later years gives it additional credence, in my opinion), and as such, it is possible that Nephi here recorded the Shem ha-Mephorash, or a variant thereof, and Joseph translated it into what it more commonly became known as during later Christian generations.

Right, but "Jesus" was His given name.