NOM

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss.

2bizE wrote:Whoa! This needs to be in the CES letter.
So, these researchers are grappling with the word “translation” and what JS means by this. You can see the wheels of apostacy turning...
I wonder if these guys have now gone through a faith crisis.

Red Ryder wrote:The Johnson's pinged on this back in 2011 and talk about it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... e_clarkes/

It's an interesting timeline to watch as 2 BYU researchers come across it and publish in March 2017 followed by Bill Reel and the exmo crowd nearly 9 months later.

2bizE wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:06 am Whoa! This needs to be in the CES letter.
So, these researchers are grappling with the word “translation” and what JS means by this. You can see the wheels of apostacy turning...
I wonder if these guys have now gone through a faith crisis.

Palerider wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:37 pm This really does show, in an indisputable way, that Joseph was more than willing to plagiarize and then claim not only the writing as his own but that it was inspired by God. Only an idiot would refuse to see the implications for the BofM and the BofA.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:30 am

2bizE wrote:Whoa! This needs to be in the CES letter.
So, these researchers are grappling with the word “translation” and what JS means by this. You can see the wheels of apostacy turning...
I wonder if these guys have now gone through a faith crisis.

I still laugh at Brother Jake's BOA video where he talks about "translation" vs "TRANSLATION!".

Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence.1

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:25 pm Hmmmm....more JS inspiration via plagiarization. No surprise there.

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:22 pm Brother Jake on translation vs "translation":

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_iuV2vIXlI

Two things I love about Brother Jake: he's very thorough, and he helps you laugh instead of grind your teeth into powder.

One of the larger questions raised by this study is whether this new information would alter the reception of Smith’s translation as a canonical or nearly canonical text. With some of the changes that Smith introduced into the text of the Bible resulting from academic sources, albeit modified and altered, the question arises as to whether the changes that arose via Clarke would have the same claim to canonicity that the longer revelatory insertions might have.

That’s right. There is new scripture in the official published version of the LDS scriptures which came from the hand of a man who did not have the Priesthood, did not have the keys or gift of translating and who could only be considered a pretender to the rights and power which Joseph Smith held. The question is not “how could this man have been given the power to reveal scripture?” but rather “how could the authorized agent of the church who selected passages for inclusion in LDS scripture footnotes (read Bruce R. McConkie) not be inspired enough to tell the difference between the handwriting of the Prophet and that of of his uninspired son or sensitive enough to distinguish legitimate revealed scripture from illegitimate scripture?”