LDS, how many times can the Book of Mormon be ';corrected'; before the original translation is considered false?

All I can say is that it's funny how many non-LDS responses you've received when you directed the question to LDS people. What would be even more funny is if you picked a response from a non-LDS person, which is what many people do who are only looking to support their own biasis or ideas.





Who really cares how many corrections have been made? What is important, as with the Bible, is the legacy or history of a message that is contained in the books. Obviously, the more a book is translated the more likely the message can be confussed or convoluted, but if you're looking at the purity of the message/story, then I don't think anything has changed with the Book of Mormon.LDS, how many times can the Book of Mormon be ';corrected'; before the original translation is considered false?
How many times do you ignorant people ask this same question before you realize how ignorant you are?LDS, how many times can the Book of Mormon be ';corrected'; before the original translation is considered false?
I wonder this: Since the Book of Mormon's basic philosophy seems to have drifted from an aspect of 'literal' to 'metaphoric' interpretation, why would not the minds of the current GAs and church scholars be engaged and render a 'Contemporary English' version with cross-references to the bible AND the original BoM text/language? I tried this once, and apparently so have others, but it is usually dismissed as a 'non-inspired' or inaccurate interpretation.





But if metaphoric symbolism is preferred over the absolutism as taught by Joseph Smith, there would certainly be less argumentative cases regarding biblical copying, anachronisms, and those doggone snakes in herds.





Some variance in the mantra may require updating, ie, ';I know the Book of Mormon to be an Inspired work...';, but it certainly introduces a gray area once defined by either black or white.
as many times as the catholic bible has been said to be edited. hey I didnt say it somebody else did!
hey, you dissing Smith's book? shame on you. he worked long and hard to write that crap.
I wonder if you have ever read it...
The Book of Mormon is a true book. If you pray and read it you'll find out by yourself.
Well, they sorted out all the racism, and some contradictions, but they haven't quite figured out how to change Abinidies God and Jesus are the same being speech.
How many times does the Bible have to be corrected, revised or translated again before the original translation is considered to be false?


Lets stop to think about how many languages the Bible went through before we got the King James Bible. Hebrew and Greek, Aramaic,Old English, Middle English, and so on...





So first, we need to recognize that there is no one translation that is the best. Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek translations of the Old Testament. Today we have no perfect translation, but there are a number which are very good.


Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.








路 Wycliffe (%26amp; Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].





路 Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].





路 Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.





路 Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.





路 Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].





路 Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the ';Bible appointed to the use of the churches';.





路 Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.





路 Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.





路 Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called ';Challoner-Rheims Version';].





路 King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].








Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)





路 Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.





路 American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.





路 Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to ';update'; the Bible.





路 Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.





路 Smith-Goodspeed or ';Chicago '; Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.





路 Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).





路 Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.





路 Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.





路 Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French ';Bible de Jerusalem'; [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].





路 New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.





路 New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.





路 New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added ';Confraternity Version'; N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.





路 Living Bible 1971: most popular ';paraphrase translation';.





路 New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.





路 Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: ';common language'; translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.





路 New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text .





路 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.





路 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV .





路 Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.





So if the Bible can be revised so many times to change words and meanings of scriptures, I think the BoM can be corrected as well, to fix minor spelling and grammar errors.
The Book of Mormon has been changed, but never corrected, as it was never incorrect.





Rewording a passage to provide better clarity is not the same as changing doctrine. Many words in other languages can be translated different ways. Often both ways are correct, but one makes it easier for the reader to understand. I seriously doubt that any translator of any work has ever re-read the work without making alterations. This doesn't mean they screwed it up the first time. It just means they found a better way to convey the intended message.





The Book of Mormon has been translated many times into many languages and each time great care has been taken to preserve the original meaning.





Don't be so determined to find fault with the LDS Church that you miss the meaning of the book.
why on earth do you think printing errors, punctuation and grammar corrects somehow make the text and the message false?
***Isn't mormon bashing fun? It's just so easy to do.***





For members of ';The Church';, never. Remember, it takes a lower intelligence person to buy that stuff in the first place, so editing it doesn't mean anything to them.





Their entire religion is constantly being updated to make it more palatable to new people, and delete previous views that are no longer popular. In fact, I hear ';colored people'; are now considered human. Yes, that's the phrase most mormons still use. Especially the more isolated, authentic Utah mormons. Apparently racism isn't politically correct anymore, so they had to revise that section. I hear it's okay for mormons to drink Pepsi now, too. After all, the mormon church basically owns Pepsi now.