(10-16-2020 11:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 10:17 AM)fsquid Wrote:  well, the book has been around for a while. Probably needed a rewrite anyways.

Interestingly, the text has strayed very little from the original texts from the 1st century.

For those who think the text in the Bible has changed over the centuries like a game of telephone, here's some really good information regarding the number of differences in the text (textual variants) and the nature of those differences.

Here's a 3 minute and 19 second video by Daniel Wallace sharing a very high-level view of textual variants in the Scriptures.






Here's a bit more in-depth information in two ~25 min videos.

Daniel Wallace: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Part 1




Daniel Wallace: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Part 2





And for those who find the area of textual criticism somewhat interesting, here's a scholarly video lasting a little over 2 hours.

New to the Spin Room though I've been over on the SEC boards for a while. I am a pastor and a PhD student in New Testament, and so I am grateful to see Dan Wallace being brought up! Fantastic and I have found a new procrastination location.

Joseph Smith himself said he completed his inspired translation, but it was never released by the church. I wouldn’t either, because I’m sure his “translation” abilities are an embarrassment to them. In the 1970s a president of that church said it would be released but it never actually was. I guess the Book of Abraham fiasco was enough embarrassment over Joseph Smith for one decade.

I’m struggling to think of which would be worse, a Chinese Communist bible rewrite or a Joe Smith version.