John Gee, Historian

[_EAllusion]

Got anything else?

Click Part 3. You completely misunderstood the italics issue, but there's an entire section devoted to a sample of preserved translation errors that you simply ignored.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Isn't that like trying to argue whether a woman is a little bit pregnant? Regardless of the KJ % in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon definitely contains KJ translator errors.

You have yet to demonstrate any "KJ translator errors".

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/isai ... ormon.html

Come on fool!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Yes, CK, I was actually aware of its place in the canon. Gee argues that Smith did not read the Apocrypha because God told him those works were of questionable inspiration. We should then suppose, I imagine, that he never read the Song of Solomon too? I don't think so, particularly when he quotes to the Song of Solomon in his revelations (D&C 5:14 [revealed at Harmony in 1828], 109:73-74). Likewise, arguing that Smith did not read the Apocrypha because God apparently told him not to retranslate it (D&C 91) doesn't work.

Ah. Sorry; I thought you might have confused Song of Solomon with Wisdom of Solomon, which would have been an understandable brain fart.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I was surprised to see this coming from you. What documentation do you have to that effect? I thought the evidence for Rigdon and Joseph Smith knowing each other before the book was published was inconclusive.

We were discussing the JST, not the Book of Mormon. For Rigdon as scribe for the JST, see D&C 35:20.

[_Tobin]

Got anything else?

Click Part 3. You completely misunderstood the italics issue, but there's an entire section devoted to a sample of preserved translation errors that you simply ignored.

I did.

It is also your opinion that modern English meaning-for-meaning translations are more correct than the more archaic English word-for-word translations.

The position Part 3 is advocating is that a more modern translation meaning-for-meaning is superior to the KJV archaic English word-for-word translation and is therefore an KJB error. As I've already stated, that is nonsense. Obviously it wasn't an error in the KJB translation. The KJB isn't a modern translation and isn't translated meaning-for-meaning. So stating those are errors is patently absurd. So again I ask, got anything else?

[_CaliforniaKid]

The position Part 3 is advocating is that a more modern translation meaning-for-meaning is superior to the KJV archaic English word-for-word translation and is therefore an KJB error.

If that's what you got out of this, then I recommend the following: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

[_Nightlion]

At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of making my mind becoming exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter of persons for he was God....

Thanks for mentioning this part. I have held that Joseph Smith received the gospel and was truly born again with the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost in the Sacred Grove as he was delivered from the enemy and his gift was that of a prophet and seer, hence he saw the Father and Son (in vision) but not in a personal visitation as people are fond of thinking. As when he came to 'himself' he was lying upon his back. He did not just walk away from a conversation with God.

But his anxiety and years of perplexity show him drawn to come unto Christ acceptably, which is exactly right, without the presumption of righteousness in the least. He did it authentically and oringinal in his generation, and having done so was privileged in restoring the Church.

[_Tobin]

The position Part 3 is advocating is that a more modern translation meaning-for-meaning is superior to the KJV archaic English word-for-word translation and is therefore an KJB error.

If that's what you got out of this, then I recommend the following: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

Funny, not. If what I'm stating is wrong, you just have to provide some examples from the source material about how I'm mistaken and I'll be happy to discuss it. So far, you've failed.

[_grindael]

Mormon apologists never fail to amaze me. If there is any ludicrous, stupid, inane or illogical conclusion, they will come to it, and actually publish it. John Gee is a moron.

[_sunstoned]

Mormon apologists never fail to amaze me. If there is any ludicrous, stupid, inane or illogical conclusion, they will come to it, and actually publish it. John Gee is a moron.

His persistence in screw ball apologetics has all but limited his academic influence to BYU and TBM sphere.