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

[Solon]

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?

This is a valid point in the sense of "there are no facts, only perceptions" of the deconstructionist or postmodern schools. But there are two major ways that modern translations are more faithful to the textus receptus.

The first is that modern scholars have more manuscripts available to them than those of 400 years ago. With such, they are able to compare more versions with respect to textual variations and to reach more informed decisions about how to edit the text. I agree that there is only tenuous connection with anything written close to the time of Jesus, but this is a problem for the believers too. So, for instance, a modern version would at least bracket the end of the book of Mark or John 5.7.

The second point is that English has evolved and certain terms and expressions in the KJV are no longer au courant vocabulary. This places an extra step between the English reader and the text. Updated English could convey meaning in contemporary vocabulary, lending stronger relevance to the modern reader. On a related note, the Ensign article I quoted reflects on the literary qualities of the KJV, paying attention to the translation's "lyrical quality." While this is undoubtedly true (the KJV is a literary masterpiece), literary quality may be a secondary concern when reading the Bible for doctrinal content and teaching.

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.

That's a valid point, creekster, but I think the article does say that the KJV is the most doctrinally accurate (or, more precisely, "doctrinally more accurate than recent version". Sure, it's because of the BoM and the JST, but trotting out the JST as an authoritative "translation" is a different can of worms.

That line comes from the LDS Bible Dictionary, s.v. Bible:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/bible?lang=eng

With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars. However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions. The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Again - what passages are these? Does anyone have an idea?

[wally]

My sources tell me that there are pieces already in motion that will see this to fruition in no fewer than 15 years but no more than 52, so I am splitting the difference at about 25.

Sorry for the elderstatesmen here who will not live to see the day.

[Jacob]

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

You have it right. The untranslated portion is the "sealed portion" and what we have is the "unsealed portion." The sealed portion, is allegedly much larger than the currently translated portion, consisting of about 2/3 of the entire gold plates. I believe it is the sealed portion under discussion here.

[Topper]

My sources tell me that there are pieces already in motion that will see this to fruition in no fewer than 15 years but no more than 52, so I am splitting the difference at about 25.

Sorry for the elderstatesmen here who will not live to see the day.

Ever heard of twinkling and the three Nephites?

[Topper]

This is a valid point in the sense of "there are no facts, only perceptions" of the deconstructionist or postmodern schools. But there are two major ways that modern translations are more faithful to the textus receptus.

The first is that modern scholars have more manuscripts available to them than those of 400 years ago. With such, they are able to compare more versions with respect to textual variations and to reach more informed decisions about how to edit the text. I agree that there is only tenuous connection with anything written close to the time of Jesus, but this is a problem for the believers too. So, for instance, a modern version would at least bracket the end of the book of Mark or John 5.7.

The second point is that English has evolved and certain terms and expressions in the KJV are no longer au courant vocabulary. This places an extra step between the English reader and the text. Updated English could convey meaning in contemporary vocabulary, lending stronger relevance to the modern reader. On a related note, the Ensign article I quoted reflects on the literary qualities of the KJV, paying attention to the translation's "lyrical quality." While this is undoubtedly true (the KJV is a literary masterpiece), literary quality may be a secondary concern when reading the Bible for doctrinal content and teaching.



That's a valid point, creekster, but I think the article does say that the KJV is the most doctrinally accurate (or, more precisely, "doctrinally more accurate than recent version". Sure, it's because of the BoM and the JST, but trotting out the JST as an authoritative "translation" is a different can of worms.

That line comes from the LDS Bible Dictionary, s.v. Bible:


Again - what passages are these? Does anyone have an idea?

I can think of two instances of the top of my head.

The Johannine Comma, where that is contradicted and supports the Church position, and Genesis 29, where the more current translations actually undermine the JST.

[wally]

Ever heard of twinkling and the three Nephites?

Sorry, my sources also tell me that twinkling won't be occuring yet (no fewer than 59 years and no more than 78 on that) and the three nephites have been back at Kolob for some time already conducting zone conferences for spirit missionaries.

[Topper]

Sorry, my sources also tell me that twinkling won't be occuring yet (no fewer than 59 years and no more than 78 on that) and the three nephites have been back at Kolob for some time already conducting zone conferences for spirit missionaries.

Your sources have been spiritually misguided, as my personal tutor is John the Beloved, and he disputes your sources.

[wally]

Your sources have been spiritually misguided, as personal tutor is John the Beloved, and disputes your sources.

Whatever. My sources tell me to tell you to tell your sources that "my sources will kick your sources ass six times a week and twice on Sunday."

My sources tell me that your source will know what that means.

[snowcat]

Whatever. My sources tell me to tell you to tell your sources that "my sources will kick your sources ass six times a week and twice on Sunday."

My sources tell me that your source will know what that means.

Can you ask your sources about BYU to the Big 12.

[Topper]

Whatever. My sources tell me to tell you to tell your sources that "my sources will kick your sources ass six times a week and twice on Sunday."

My sources tell me that your source will know what that means.

My source says your source already went to confessional for such conduct, and does your source wish to spend the next two hundred years in Vladivostok?

[pellegrino]

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?

No, I don't but then I've never checked. The interesting thing about this is that JS obviously didn't like the KJV enough to declare it the standard for the church. Why else would he undertake a translation of the bible?

[wally]

My source says your source already went to confessional for such conduct, and does your source wish to spend the next two hundred years in Vladivostok?

Aww, hell I can't fight you any more. First, you are a fellow rugger and that makes you kin, second, you know how to spell Vladivostok my second favorite Russian city that I've never been to besides Arkhangelsk.

What I'm tryin' to say Topper, is dammit, you are OK by me man, and I will accept your sources superiority.

[Pheidippides]

No, I don't but then I've never checked. The interesting thing about this is that JS obviously didn't like the KJV enough to declare it the standard for the church. Why else would he undertake a translation of the bible?

Question on this: were there any widely available English translations of the Bible available in JS's time other than the KJV?

I love the KJV as literature. I use the NIV in study and church.

[Viking]

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

Unfortunately, never. According to sources close to the Viking family, the Franklin Mint found the plates in upstate New York, melted them down and now sells them as gold plated (not solid!) commemorative coins on QVC. Buy one now!