The mistranslation of the Bible is suggested in the eighth Article of Faith. Talmage explains, "There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost... Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men" (A. of F., p. 237).
So when is this going to happen?
Smith tried it, and failed miserably.
So what other Mormon prophet is going to step up and get the job done?
And why is the Holy Ghost needed to translate text from one language into another?
Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth Prophet of Mormonism also said: "There is not one principle pertaining to the salvation of men that is so clearly stated in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that men do not stumble over — not one thing. There is not one principle they can be united on that has been so clearly stated that they do not find their interpretations of it conflicting" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 278).
Very vague, and unsubstantiated.
Joseph Smith also declared, "Ignorant translators,
No evidence for such an outlandish claim.
Well, this one I can agree with.
After all, it's not like scribes had electric lighting, or eyeglasses, or Aspirin, or enforced breaks every 4 hours, etc. etc. I think I can forgive them for the occasional scribal error.
Fortunately, we have over 5800 Greek manuscripts of the NT, and thousands more from other translations (Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, etc.), not to mention hundreds of thousands of quotes in lectionaries.
How many copies of the Reformed Egyptian Book of Mormon do we have?
ZERO.
or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (T. of P.J.S., p. 327).
No evidence, of course...
And LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson said, "Many insertions were made,
This is true.
But unfortunately for you, because of the many thousands of manuscripts extant, we know where the insertions were, and have removed them (which is why modern Bibles don't have John 5:4, for example). But they weren't added for nepharious purposes. Scribes had such a high respect for Scripture that if they found a text in the margin, they didn't want to risk the fact that it might be a missed line of Scripture that they couldn't put in the regular place, so they added it in the margin, so as not to lose it. Unfortunately, many marginal comment notes (such as John 5:4) were inadvertantly added to Scripture.
some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).
And of course there is zero evidence for this, since it isn't true. The only possible example would be 1 John 5:7 being inserted into Erasmus' Greek NT text, but the Trinity is hardly dependent on that, and I believe those who fought for its inclusion most likely thought it was honestly Scripture, since it was in their Latin Vulgate.
