When will the Large Plates of Nephi be translated and released?

[Indy Coug]

When will the Large Plates of Nephi be translated and released?

[Moliere]

A couple months ago MJ asked me if I thought we'd ever have another prophet take a shot at retranslating the Bible. I told her that I doubt it. Could you imagine the church coming out with a new book of scripture based on ancient writings, I mean like a canonized one? They would be crazy to do that.

[Indy Coug]

A couple months ago MJ asked me if I thought we'd ever have another prophet take a shot at retranslating the Bible. I told her that I doubt it. Could you imagine the church coming out with a new book of scripture based on ancient writings, I mean like a canonized one? They would be crazy to do that.

It would be a nice shot in the arm for the 2nd hour at church.

[DrumNFeather]

When will the Large Plates of Nephi be translated and released?

This is probably one of those urban legends...or church cliches, but I remember hearing that "general authorities have said: Members don't read the scriptures they have...why would they get more?"

That said...it would be kind of awesome.

[pellegrino]

This is probably one of those urban legends...or church cliches, but I remember hearing that "general authorities have said: Members don't read the scriptures they have...why would they get more?"

That said...it would be kind of awesome.

this is also the reason for the repetitive nature of General Conference talks. "We need to better live the truth that we have."

As for the large plates, I don't think we'll ever see them.

[Northwestcoug]

I think ETB brought a lot of this discussion on, about how we weren't using what we already have in the BOM. More than one religion professor at BYU told me that the day would come when a prophet would don a urim and thummim and translate away.

[Backslidercoug]

I thought from Mosiah to Mormon was on the Large Plates? Maybe I'm mistaken?

Here is how I thought it was broken up:

Small Plates of Nephi- 1st Nephi to Omni
Large Plates of Nephi- Mosiah to Mormon
Record of Jaredites- Ether
Mormons writings during abridgment- Words of Mormon and Mormon
Plates of Lehi- The 116 lost pages

Maybe someone with more knowledge can correct me

[Solon]

A couple months ago MJ asked me if I thought we'd ever have another prophet take a shot at retranslating the Bible. I told her that I doubt it. Could you imagine the church coming out with a new book of scripture based on ancient writings, I mean like a canonized one? They would be crazy to do that.

With respect, I believe that the LDS church avoids using updated Bible translations because it would cast doubts on the Book of Mormon. Not insurmountable problems to the BoM's inspired nature, but it would call into question just how much JS cribbed from the KJV. This is interesting because studies into the Book of Abraham have already demonstrated (in my mind, at least) that Joseph Smith was more of an interpreter than a translator (I do not mean that pejoratively).

From the August 2011 Ensign:

Today, English-speaking Church members use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/08/40...bible?lang=eng

If anything, more updated language allows for greater doctrinal clarity.

Does anyone know of a KJV doctrinal principle that is less accurate in modern versions?

[Indy Coug]

With respect, I believe that the LDS church avoids using updated Bible translations because it would cast doubts on the Book of Mormon. Not insurmountable problems to the BoM's inspired nature, but it would call into question just how much JS cribbed from the KJV. This is interesting because studies into the Book of Abraham have already demonstrated (in my mind, at least) that Joseph Smith was more of an interpreter than a translator (I do not mean that pejoratively).

From the August 2011 Ensign:

If anything, more updated language allows for greater doctrinal clarity.

Does anyone know of a KJV doctrinal principle that is less accurate in modern versions?

Considering we have zero orginal source manuscripts, on what basis do we have to say any given Biblical translation is any more accurate than another? Even if the translation from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc. etc. etc. is accurate, on what basis do we determine what was written in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc. etc. etc. was correct to begin with?

[Topper]

Considering we have zero orginal source manuscripts, on what basis do we have to say any given Biblical translation is any more accurate than another? Even if the translation from Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc. etc. etc. is accurate, on what basis do we determine what was written in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc. etc. etc. was correct to begin with?

Biblical hermeneutics has discussed this at length. The short answer is some assumptions have been debated and accepted, namely, that materials in the languages which were used at the time or near the time when the events took place are more likely to be accurate than later translations. There is a string of constructs believed and relied upon.

They make sense when you read them in total and explained by the experts. If you are asking if anybody can make a guarantee, of course not. But these presumptions have led to further discoveries seemingly validating them.

[creekster]

From the August 2011 Ensign:

If anything, more updated language allows for greater doctrinal clarity.

Does anyone know of a KJV doctrinal principle that is less accurate in modern versions?

The quotation doesn't say the KJV is the most doctrinally correct, it says that because of the revelation given to JS the church holds to the KJV which, in my mind, is a tacit concession of your earlier point; using other translations might undermine JS as a prophet. This doesn't mean that the KJV is wrong, but that because it has been interpreted and refined in its meaning through modern revelation, it is more accurate to use it. Using the NSRV, for example, would then require a regressive re-translation when reading 2Ne or the JST translation and so forth.

just my opinion.

[Indy Coug]

Biblical hermeneutics has discussed this at length. The short answer is some assumptions have been debated and accepted, namely, that materials in the languages which were used at the time or near the time when the events took place are more likely to be accurate than later translations. There is a string of constructs believed and relied upon.

They make sense when you read them in total and explained by the experts. If you are asking if anybody can make a guarantee, of course not. But these presumptions have led to further discoveries seemingly validating them.

But even if you can approximate convergence, ultimately you are left with a convergence point which itself has no provenance.

[Portland Ute]

this is also the reason for the repetitive nature of General Conference talks. "We need to better live the truth that we have."

As for the large plates, I don't think we'll ever see them.

Nothing like guilting away questions or concerns.

Pretty effective.

[Topper]

But even if you can approximate convergence, ultimately you are left with a convergence point which itself has no provenance.

The scientific methods allows us to reduce the ambiguity, not eliminate it.

[Topper]

The quotation doesn't say the KJV is the most doctrinally correct, it says that because of the revelation given to JS the church holds to the KJV which, in my mind, is a tacit concession of your earlier point; using other translations might undermine JS as a prophet. This doesn't mean that the KJV is wrong, but that because it has been interpreted and refined in its meaning through modern revelation, it is more accurate to use it. Using the NSRV, for example, would then require a regressive re-translation when reading 2Ne or the JST translation and so forth.

just my opinion.

Good point.