Plain Book Of Mormon

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]
I can imagine someone in the 2nd or 3rd century making a 'simpler' Book of Revelations or Isaiah [...][/b]

That mental image made me chuckle. Perhaps that's how Genesis was written?

Original:

And on the 352,257,986,365,214,569,987th day, G-d allowed slight mutations to the following genes in the following animals...

And on the 352,257,986,365,214,569,988th day, G-d allowed slight mutations to the following genes in the following animals...

New:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>
[...]
I can imagine someone in the 2nd or 3rd century making a 'simpler' Book of Revelations or Isaiah [...][/b]

That mental image made me chuckle. Perhaps that's how Genesis was written?

Original:

And on the 352,257,986,365,214,569,987th day, G-d allowed slight mutations to the following genes in the following animals...

And on the 352,257,986,365,214,569,988th day, G-d allowed slight mutations to the following genes in the following animals...[/b][/quote]



Elphaba

[Traveler]

One of the interesting things that comes to us from the scriptures is the various manners that G-d communicates his will. In just about every case those that are the targets of G-d's communication have no clue what is going on. For example - the dreams of Pharaoh.

The scriptures have little meaning for those that have become caught up in the world. Even the image of the world alludes many. I would liken the scriptures to an onion and the line upon line upon line – precept upon precept upon precept. With each layer and understanding one faces again a deeper layer and understanding. And when they think they have enough understand they lose what understanding they did have.

Some tire and do not care to search in the manner G-d prescribes and teaches – They desire the ways and methods taught by the world so they think to make the scriptures simple to understand and in so doing they lose their way and arrive at the concept of doctrine by canon. Thinking that because of their learning they understand and can explain to others.

I believe that those that think all that is needed is explained in scripture have failed, both at life and understanding the scriptures.

The Traveler

[VisionOfLehi]

I know I'm dragging up an old topic here, but that Wilson guy seemed a bit arrogant! And people who jump to the defense like that so quickly just make me suspicious!

He says if you read his version you'll understand the BoM better than 90% of Saints out there. He's saying that HIS knowledge and interpretation of the Book of Mormon is so complete, so thorough, that he has obtained the ability to convey its meaning so perfectly clear that we'll have a 90% better understanding.

Excuse me? Not even the Prophets claim such an understanding.

That comment alone has left me with the desire to advise against reading it.


Edit: Also, he changed "I, Nephi" to "My name is Nephi."
That's ridiculous. There's PLAIN and then there's IDIOT'S GUIDE.

[inthearmsofsleep]

Well, regardless of what anyone thinks, translating the Book of Mormon into "plain english" must've been a huge task. Thanks for doing it! I'm almost done with 1st Nephi, and I enjoy it so far. Of course there are little things that I feel come across better in the original translation, but this is an excellent addition to the original. I would recommend this for anyone who has read the Book of Mormon and wants to refresh their memory on the events that took place. AND.... it's free!

[WillowTheWhisp]

Bearing in mind that the Book of Mormon has been translated into I don't know how many languages by now, all without the aid of Urim and Thummim, and the fact that the Church has published a children's version in cartoon drawn format I don't think there's anything wrong with having a modern day version as a guideline to get a good overall picture of what the Book says. It seems to me that it can be used as a helpful assistant to those who struggle with reading. I have a dyslexic daughter who really struggles to understand the Book of Mormon. If this can help her then I welcome it and thank you for the link.

[VisionOfLehi]

Am I wrong in assuming, though, that those other-language editions of the Book of Mormon have been approved by the First Presidency?

[WillowTheWhisp]

You are correct of course, all publications issued by the church have been approved by the First Presidency.

There are a lot more books on sale in the LDS bookstore than the church manuals etc though - and that doesn't make them bad doctrine. Many of them help in understanding the scriptures and the doctrine.

I don't think this book should replace the Book of Mormon but as an aid to understanding it I'm sure it's a great help.

[rayhale]

There are two different points of view in Bible translation. One is what I will call, a dumbed down version, and the other is a version that is true to the original that is in modern English.
I don’t have web links but these two points of view can be seen in these two articles of ‘Christianity Today’ :
‘Meaning-full translations’ by Eugene A. Nida
‘We really do need another Bible translation’ by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen
The first article is about how the Bible uses old and unused words that we don’t know, or have changed to mean the opposite thing then what is intended. Mr. Nida believes people need translations that make the Bible more understandable to today’s people. Sometimes, not always, even at the expense of what was said. For example, in the second article it says that in a pig-sacrificing area of the world, the translator of the Bible said that Jesus was a ‘pig-herd’ instead of a ‘shepherd’, because they understood the importance of a pig and not of sheep. Now how more of a wrong of a translation than that is there? Throughout the Old Testament, pigs were unclean so it wouldn’t be right to totally change what is said, because it would also change dramatically what is meant.
In the second article it does agree that the Bible is hard to understand but it just forces us to study and learn what is said and also what is meant. Translations can never be perfect but I do think with all of the Bible manuscripts out there and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can make sure, more now then ever before, what was said and what was meant.
I’m not totally against a modern English version of the Book of Mormon, yet I feel that you need to be careful about it. For example, there’s those Bibles that have the King James Version on one side of the page and some other version, like the Basic English Version on the other side of the page. I feel this is the only way a new version of the Book of Mormon, or even the Bible, should be published. This way you can read the different versions and make up your mind as to what is meant.

[Mykdiver]

Totally agree with you sixpacktr.