The "sons of God" could very well have been angels, which pre-existed humans.
They are angels which are also humans in the pre-existence.
But I do note your "appears" and "apparent". To you. But what we DO have is a rich depository of ancient Hebrew and Greek NT copies--thousands of them, whole or in part that scholars can compare and contrast.
They can compare and contrast all they want, but without the originals they are never going to know which ones are in error. The can assume that one is more correct than the other by finding an earlier manuscript when text wasn't present, but even that text, they can be sure that it is correct without the original text. That's not what it "appears" to be, nor is it "apparent". It is a fact. You can't generate something you don't have no matter how much of it you don't have.
What do we have with the BoM? A book that was riddled with errors in its first edition, many of them grammatical, from the get-go
We have a lot more of the original text than you all have of the Bible's original text.
Remember this:
This was by a Mormon historian, B. H. Roberts. Remember the printer had to go by the written manuscript of the BoM.
No. I don't remember any of that at all. Should I?
I don't know anything, nor do I care, what Joseph Fielding Smith was talking about or when he said it. The idea that your junk site thinks they have a study that proves anyone was lying fails on its face if they cannot prove that the individual knew the truth when he said it. In order to lie, one must do it knowingly. Otherwise, he is just ignorant of the truth.
Secondly, BH Roberts was talking about the tone and nature of the Book of Mormon, that in it's earliest form, not in the first edition, we know for a fact that changes were made from the manuscripts to the printer's copy (they didn't want to give him the originals which makes sense) to the first edition, which you keep harping about, that changes were made. Most of the punctuation was inserted by the printer and common typographical errors were made in that printing. Joseph made changes to the printer's copy and well as Oliver Cowdry. These are well known facts. The crux of BH Roberts statement that you quoted revolves around what is meant by "the errors in question", which from the text, appears to be the writing style, not the punctuation because punctuation is normally not transmitted in translation process (in other words, God did not specify where to put the comma or the period or to make a new paragraph). But we don't have enough in your source to determine that for sure, I believe the errors BH Roberts is talking about and the errors Josph Fielding Smith is talking about are two completely different issues. I believe, as BH Roberts does, that the style of writing, the words and grammar used was intentional and not errors. At the beginning of your quote, BH Roberts unequivocally stated that there are typos and errors "especially in the first edition" of the Book of Mormon and that such errors are to be expected. Obviously, text that was free from errors was the original manuscript, minus, of course, the punctuation and some spelling errors. But the tone and grammar used was intentional and virtually free of errors.
As I explained repeatedly and am now explaining again. The second man touched it, changes started entering the text. That includes the errors in punctuation and spelling. But Joseph Smith made no errors in translation (this, of course, we cannot prove because we don't have the original plates). I believe God gave Joseph Smith the exact meaning he intended to he conveyed in the text exactly the way it was written. I have stated that I believe the original text that we have is far superior to the corrected text we have today. That is including the odd phrases and bad grammar. It carries with it an unparalleled ability to communicate meaning even though the structure is odd. I find the work by Royal Skousen to be a phenomenal accomplishment and like him, I am disappointed we don't have more of the original text. There were no structural or grammatical errors in that text.
The fact remains--the Bible, both OT and NT--has been remarkably well-preserved,
The fact is, you have no way of knowing that without the original manuscripts. You can theorize and hypothize until you are blue in the fact, but it is not a fact and you can never know that what you said is true without the original manuscripts. I've demonstrated this on this site already. OG just said he didn't care about what was missing. I laughed because, that's the same attitude you all take to the scriptures. You don't care what's missing, so what you have is accurate.
But to be clear, it is only accurate because you say it is, not because it actually is. We've already seen changes as errors have been assessed to the point that scholars and theologians come to ao consensus. But not everyone agrees and some versions still have the errors.
I know they are pretty well preserved because we have the Book of Mormon which clears up misconceptions but supports the general salvational text of the Bible. What was not well preserved was the doctrines that the Bible teaches. How and why that got messed up is anyone's guess, but most modern Christian churches do not teach the Bible. They have abandoned it in favor of their own traditions.
