The LDS argument that the Bible is Unreliable

[Yodas_Prodigy]

I recently had a conversation with some LDS missionaries. I came into the discussion on day 2 after having been invited by a friend. The missionaries agreed that it was fine to invite me. One of the points of discussion was the reliability/unreliability of the Bible.

My question to the forum LDS, which document do you have that identifies all of the areas where the Bible is errant, wrongly translated, or missing information?

I ask this question due to the fact that if you believe parts of the Bible, it would be nice to know which parts.

 

[Richard7]

I recently had a conversation with some LDS missionaries. I came into the discussion on day 2 after having been invited by a friend. The missionaries agreed that it was fine to invite me. One of the points of discussion was the reliability/unreliability of the Bible.

My question to the forum LDS, which document do you have that identifies all of the areas where the Bible is errant, wrongly translated, or missing information?

I ask this question due to the fact that if you believe parts of the Bible, it would be nice to know which parts.

What you're asking for is not something we have instant access to.... meaning we have to rely on the Scholars, historians and Archeologist to help us with defining reliability and or unreliability of the Bible. Being novices except for maybe a few who frequent this Forum, we are not equipped to debate such a complex issue...

 

[Theo1689]

I recently had a conversation with some LDS missionaries. I came into the discussion on day 2 after having been invited by a friend. The missionaries agreed that it was fine to invite me. One of the points of discussion was the reliability/unreliability of the Bible.

<Chuckle>
Why am I not surprised, that by day 2 they were ALREADY trying to attack the Bibile?

To prepare yourself for this, get a copy of Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration".

Then go to the Credo Courses website a get a copy of the video course on Textual Criticism by Daniel Wallace. You can often get the audio files free or for a minimal price, as they frequently run sales. It's excellent.

Basically, we have about 5,800 cataloged manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in whole or in part. Now, "manuscript" means "hand-written", and everyone makes mistakes when they write things down (look at all the typo's in today's forums and texts). But they really don't prevent us from figuring out what the text is, even when it occassionally causes problems, we have the ability to compare manuscripts of the same verse, and use standard principles, such as earlier manuscripts are more reliable, more difficult readings tend to be more authentic than "easier" readings, etc. etc. Both Metzger and Wallace go into this in detail, and Wallace's mantra is, "Choose the reading that explains the rest of the readings."

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon.
First of all, NOBODY writes Scripture on "gold plates". It's too wasteful if you make a mistake.
It's written in a language of which no evidence exists of the language's existence.
There are no other writings in this language anywhere in the world.
There is only the one set of plates.
We no longer have these alleged "plates".
There is absolutely NO way of determining if the claims are accurate, or if the "translation" is accurate, or anything of the sort.

My question to the forum LDS, which document do you have that identifies all of the areas where the Bible is errant, wrongly translated, or missing information?

I would guess that they would point to the Joseph Smith Translation, but there are problems with that:

1) the LDS don't even use that translation, they use the straight KJV;

2) Smith only translated a very SMALL portion of the Bible, and clearly for doctrinal reasons. So the rest of the Bible remains "uncorrected". Why is the Mormon god no longer concerned with "correcting" it?

3) Why did the Mormon god allow the Bible to be allegedly "corrupted" in the first place? Why is its origin so DRASTICALLY different from that of the BoM?

4) There are ZERO manuscripts supporting Smith's alleged "corrections" to the Bible;

I ask this question due to the fact that if you believe parts of the Bible, it would be nice to know which parts.

Exactly.

What you're asking for is not something we have instant access to....

So maybe you should stop making claims you can't support?

Maybe your church should revise the AoF as follows:

AoF 8 “We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Bible to be the word of God

meaning we have to rely on the Scholars, historians and Archeologist to help us with defining reliability and or unreliability of the Bible.

That's false.
The information is out there for you to see for yourself.
Codex Sinaiticus is available for free online.
You can get facsimilies of most of the manuscripts.
Actually, Dan Wallace has spent years going around the world photographing Bible manuscripts which you can see for yourself on his CSNTM website.
You can get NT commentaries by Metzger or Philip Comfort which list the significant variants of every verse of the NT, and reasons why which particular one is the authentic reading.

But you likely won't go down that road, since the results don't favour Mormon claims.

 

[Magdalena]

What you're asking for is not something we have instant access to.... meaning we have to rely on the Scholars, historians and Archeologist to help us with defining reliability and or unreliability of the Bible. Being novices except for maybe a few who frequent this Forum, we are not equipped to debate such a complex issue...

Meaning that makes it convenient for you to disagree with the Bible whenever it suits your argument.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

<Chuckle>
Why am I not surprised, that by day 2 they were ALREADY trying to attack the Bibile?

To prepare yourself for this, get a copy of Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration".

Then go to the Credo Courses website a get a copy of the video course on Textual Criticism by Daniel Wallace. You can often get the audio files free or for a minimal price, as they frequently run sales. It's excellent.

Basically, we have about 5,800 cataloged manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in whole or in part. Now, "manuscript" means "hand-written", and everyone makes mistakes when they write things down (look at all the typo's in today's forums and texts). But they really don't prevent us from figuring out what the text is, even when it occassionally causes problems, we have the ability to compare manuscripts of the same verse, and use standard principles, such as earlier manuscripts are more reliable, more difficult readings tend to be more authentic than "easier" readings, etc. etc. Both Metzger and Wallace go into this in detail, and Wallace's mantra is, "Choose the reading that explains the rest of the readings."

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon.
First of all, NOBODY writes Scripture on "gold plates". It's too wasteful if you make a mistake.
It's written in a language of which no evidence exists of the language's existence.
There are no other writings in this language anywhere in the world.
There is only the one set of plates.
We no longer have these alleged "plates".
There is absolutely NO way of determining if the claims are accurate, or if the "translation" is accurate, or anything of the sort.



I would guess that they would point to the Joseph Smith Translation, but there are problems with that:

1) the LDS don't even use that translation, they use the straight KJV;

2) Smith only translated a very SMALL portion of the Bible, and clearly for doctrinal reasons. So the rest of the Bible remains "uncorrected". Why is the Mormon god no longer concerned with "correcting" it?

3) Why did the Mormon god allow the Bible to be allegedly "corrupted" in the first place? Why is its origin so DRASTICALLY different from that of the BoM?

4) There are ZERO manuscripts supporting Smith's alleged "corrections" to the Bible;



Exactly.



So maybe you should stop making claims you can't support?

Maybe your church should revise the AoF as follows:

AoF 8 “We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Bible to be the word of God



That's false.
The information is out there for you to see for yourself.
Codex Sinaiticus is available for free online.
You can get facsimilies of most of the manuscripts.
Actually, Dan Wallace has spent years going around the world photographing Bible manuscripts which you can see for yourself on his CSNTM website.
You can get NT commentaries by Metzger or Philip Comfort which list the significant variants of every verse of the NT, and reasons why which particular one is the authentic reading.

But you likely won't go down that road, since the results don't favour Mormon claims.

I came into the discussion a day late. I challenged them with the manuscripts. I do have a copy of the Joseph Smith Bible and I also have a copy of the original BOM documenting 3900 errors. Unfortunately, I was not leading the discussion and could not break them out. The two missionaries got a bit nervous when I pulled out my own copy of a leatherbound Quad.

My friend felt like they were not going to come back. So, he decided to share the Gospel with them reminding them that they are not worshipping the true Jesus...

 

[Richard7]

<Chuckle>
Why am I not surprised, that by day 2 they were ALREADY trying to attack the Bibile?

To prepare yourself for this, get a copy of Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration".

Then go to the Credo Courses website a get a copy of the video course on Textual Criticism by Daniel Wallace. You can often get the audio files free or for a minimal price, as they frequently run sales. It's excellent.

Basically, we have about 5,800 cataloged manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in whole or in part. Now, "manuscript" means "hand-written", and everyone makes mistakes when they write things down (look at all the typo's in today's forums and texts). But they really don't prevent us from figuring out what the text is, even when it occassionally causes problems, we have the ability to compare manuscripts of the same verse, and use standard principles, such as earlier manuscripts are more reliable, more difficult readings tend to be more authentic than "easier" readings, etc. etc. Both Metzger and Wallace go into this in detail, and Wallace's mantra is, "Choose the reading that explains the rest of the readings."

Thank you for adding to the known complexity that you are admitting to as you give the many different references, books, etc one would have to read and study...

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon.
First of all, NOBODY writes Scripture on "gold plates". It's too wasteful if you make a mistake.

• Exodus 28:36-38 36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. ...
• "And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.

It's written in a language of which no evidence exists of the language's existence.

Discovery of the Sinaia Lead Plates​

In addition, there were also several other unknown languages and archaic symbols that only added to scholarly confusion. Words such as ‘mato’ (king), ‘talipoko’ (fortress), and ‘kotopolo’ (priest) had no distinguishable characteristics from other European tongues.
2 APRIL, 2022 - 22:47 Jake Leigh-Howarth..

There are no other writings in this language anywhere in the world.

The world is a large place dude.... in fact archeologist say they have only scratched the surface of and new discoveries...

There is only the one set of plates.

Not true, JS stated that Mormon spoke of many other plates... just saying!

We no longer have these alleged "plates".

True, but eventually we have been told that the 2/3rds that were not translated we will have eventually...

There is absolutely NO way of determining if the claims are accurate, or if the "translation" is accurate, or anything of the sort.

Well you will have to debate that with the 12 witnesses of the Gold Plates... chuckle.

I would guess that they would point to the Joseph Smith Translation, but there are problems with that:

Such as, you are quiet when pushed to reveal you deep knowledge of JS translation... opinions are great, but that's all you got.

1) the LDS don't even use that translation, they use the straight KJV;

Yet it's listed as a reference in most modern day King James Bible put our by our Church...

2) Smith only translated a very SMALL portion of the Bible, and clearly for doctrinal reasons. So the rest of the Bible remains "uncorrected". Why is the Mormon god no longer concerned with "correcting" it?

Why does God have to do the work, is man not capable of intelligent translating...

3) Why did the Mormon god allow the Bible to be allegedly "corrupted" in the first place? Why is its origin so DRASTICALLY different from that of the BoM?

Why did God allow millions to be killed at German Holocaust camps. Men, women and Children... yes, they were not chosen...sad.

4) There are ZERO manuscripts supporting Smith's alleged "corrections" to the Bible;

Yes there are... Adam Clarke

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

What you're asking for is not something we have instant access to.... meaning we have to rely on the Scholars, historians and Archeologist to help us with defining reliability and or unreliability of the Bible. Being novices except for maybe a few who frequent this Forum, we are not equipped to debate such a complex issue...

Why not? It seems they don't want you to make your own decisions based upon the evidence. LDS tend to be educated people. IMHO, they know there could be a mass exodus from their faith...

 

[Richard7]

Meaning that makes it convenient for you to disagree with the Bible whenever it suits your argument.

No, it means I don't have the time or the talent to make those observations... I leave it to both side to debate the correctness of the Bible...

 

[Richard7]

Why not? It seems they don't want you to make your own decisions based upon the evidence. LDS tend to be educated people. IMHO, they know there could be a mass exodus from their faith...

I see, then you are a expert in the field of Biblical History and Scholastic studies... well you have more knowledge then me.

 

[Magdalena]

No, it means I don't have the time or the talent to make those observations... I leave it to both side to debate the correctness of the Bible...

Cop out. You debate it all the time.

 

[Theo1689]

Thank you for adding to the known complexity that you are admitting to as you give the many different references, books, etc one would have to read and study...

Imagine that... You actually have to study and make an effort, in order to have an informed opinion.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand that...

• Exodus 28:36-38 36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. ...

Um, that's not Scripture, that's a SIGN.
You truly don't know the difference?

Discovery of the Sinaia Lead Plates
In addition, there were also several other unknown languages and archaic symbols that only added to scholarly confusion. Words such as ‘mato’ (king), ‘talipoko’ (fortress), and ‘kotopolo’ (priest) had no distinguishable characteristics from other European tongues.
2 APRIL, 2022 - 22:47 Jake Leigh-Howarth..

I'm not sure what nonsense the above is.

The world is a large place dude.... in fact archeologist say they have only scratched the surface of and new discoveries...

Translation: You hope beyond home that evidence MIGHT be found, one day.

Well you will have to debate that with the 12 witnesses of the Gold Plates... chuckle.

You do realize, I hope, that "witness" testimony is of the least reliable forms of evidence?

Yes there are... Adam Clarke

Um, I believe Adam Clarke was not a textual critic.
But that doesn't answer my question.
What manuscripts support any of Smith's alleged "corrections" of the KJV?
"Adam Clarke" is not the name of a manuscript.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

I see, then you are a expert in the field of Biblical History and Scholastic studies... well you have more knowledge then me.

Yes I do... Only because I attend classes and conferences, do the research, buy the books, and search the Internet...

 

[Elijah the Tishbite]

Imagine that... You actually have to study and make an effort, in order to have an informed opinion.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand that...



Um, that's not Scripture, that's a SIGN.
You truly don't know the difference?



I'm not sure what nonsense the above is.



Translation: You hope beyond home that evidence MIGHT be found, one day.




You do realize, I hope, that "witness" testimony is of the least reliable forms of evidence?



Um, I believe Adam Clarke was not a textual critic.
But that doesn't answer my question.
What manuscripts support any of Smith's alleged "corrections" of the KJV?
"Adam Clarke" is not the name of a manuscript.

There isn't any manuscripts that agree with Joseph Smith's translaton corrections

 

[Richard7]

There isn't any manuscripts that agree with Joseph Smith's translaton corrections

Tyndale​

William Tyndale (c. 1494 – 1536) was an English priest. He was the first person to produce an English translation of the Bible directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Adam Clark... Adam Clarke, a British theologian, took almost 40 years to complete his comprehensive tome, published as The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present Authorized Version. Including the marginal readings and parallel texts. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Clarke’s commentary became a primary theological resource for nearly two centuries.
Source: Latter-day Saint Perspectives...

 

[Bonnie]

<Chuckle>
Why am I not surprised, that by day 2 they were ALREADY trying to attack the Bibile?

To prepare yourself for this, get a copy of Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration".

Then go to the Credo Courses website a get a copy of the video course on Textual Criticism by Daniel Wallace. You can often get the audio files free or for a minimal price, as they frequently run sales. It's excellent.

Basically, we have about 5,800 cataloged manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in whole or in part. Now, "manuscript" means "hand-written", and everyone makes mistakes when they write things down (look at all the typo's in today's forums and texts). But they really don't prevent us from figuring out what the text is, even when it occassionally causes problems, we have the ability to compare manuscripts of the same verse, and use standard principles, such as earlier manuscripts are more reliable, more difficult readings tend to be more authentic than "easier" readings, etc. etc. Both Metzger and Wallace go into this in detail, and Wallace's mantra is, "Choose the reading that explains the rest of the readings."

Now compare this to the Book of Mormon.
First of all, NOBODY writes Scripture on "gold plates". It's too wasteful if you make a mistake.
It's written in a language of which no evidence exists of the language's existence.
There are no other writings in this language anywhere in the world.
There is only the one set of plates.
We no longer have these alleged "plates".
There is absolutely NO way of determining if the claims are accurate, or if the "translation" is accurate, or anything of the sort.



I would guess that they would point to the Joseph Smith Translation, but there are problems with that:

1) the LDS don't even use that translation, they use the straight KJV;

2) Smith only translated a very SMALL portion of the Bible, and clearly for doctrinal reasons. So the rest of the Bible remains "uncorrected". Why is the Mormon god no longer concerned with "correcting" it?

3) Why did the Mormon god allow the Bible to be allegedly "corrupted" in the first place? Why is its origin so DRASTICALLY different from that of the BoM?

4) There are ZERO manuscripts supporting Smith's alleged "corrections" to the Bible;



Exactly.



So maybe you should stop making claims you can't support?

Maybe your church should revise the AoF as follows:

AoF 8 “We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Bible to be the word of God



That's false.
The information is out there for you to see for yourself.
Codex Sinaiticus is available for free online.
You can get facsimilies of most of the manuscripts.
Actually, Dan Wallace has spent years going around the world photographing Bible manuscripts which you can see for yourself on his CSNTM website.
You can get NT commentaries by Metzger or Philip Comfort which list the significant variants of every verse of the NT, and reasons why which particular one is the authentic reading.

But you likely won't go down that road, since the results don't favour Mormon claims.

Hi Theo--Markk wrote this to me on here 5 years ago, about the shallowness of Mormon apologetics. Part of what he wrote is pertinent to your list of comparisons between the Bible and the BoM, and why the latter falls far short. I am going to cut and paste part of it here:

Hey Bonnie, what i am about to write is very important to understand about LDS folks.

If we are going to use the "word" admonish, it needs to be qualified. Mormons generally are good people, like most Christians...folks just trying to deal with life the best they can. It is not like there are these arch-villain type of teachers teaching the folks what to say. Mormons all the way from the top down simply do not have the answers, nor are they equipped to deal with question that are beyond the "talking point theology" we were instructed in. There is nothing deep or exhaustive about LDS theology. I have a few LDS commentary and they are a joke...there is no inductive reasoning within them.

if anything they are instructed more o walk away from a debate than to engage. Back in the day , about 10-15 years ago there was a forum one could debate the top LDS apologist...folks like Daniel Peterson, Ben McGuire, Lou Midgely, and others. These men and women had no better answers than the folks we engage with here. Like those here, most often it came down to ad hom remarks to avoid a direct objective conversation. My current request for a conversation about the BoM standing alone, would be dodged just as it is here....

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

They avoid discussions here about their theology not becasue they don't want to have conversation, but because they can't ...once the surface is scratched...they are lost.

Think about this...have you ever, and I mean ever seen OC, or DB or any other members here present a LDS position, lay out a premise, and follow it through? No, and you never will, their prophets and apostles couldn't do it either simply becasue their theology is nothing more than repeated talking points.

This is why theology is not important inside the church walls. It is why members sleep in class, in church, or google an shop in sacrament. ( a common discussion on LDS forums.)

As Christians we can not prove there is a God, yet we can present evidence based on our faith and interpretation of scripture. Technically so can a Mormon's. The difference is theirs is built on evidences of the imagination of JS. There is no natural proof that the BoM was real...every piece of it is up for debate in regards of it generating from real people in real places.

In other words, one can deny the existence of God, but they cannot deny the existence of Jews and Christians in a ancient world that believed what they did. You cannot deny Jerusalem, or the Nile, or Egypt, or Camels and Chariots complementing the narrative.

Mormonism has none of that...there are roadblocks and dead end at every doctrine or narrative that strays from the Bible.

And yes I suppose it is wide, great analogy...but again very shallow...putting together a defense for LDS theology demands tearing down the question asker and starting endless rabbit trails, which in the end fall.

Their theology is wide, but shallow, because their faith is based upon a fictional book with no basis in reality, unlike the Bible, which is a record of a real people that still exist, that took place in real towns and real countries, many of which have the same location and names today. The BoM has none of that.


I think what Markk wrote here is very insightful. I am glad I archived it.

 

[Bonnie]

Tyndale​

William Tyndale (c. 1494 – 1536) was an English priest. He was the first person to produce an English translation of the Bible directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Adam Clark... Adam Clarke, a British theologian, took almost 40 years to complete his comprehensive tome, published as The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present Authorized Version. Including the marginal readings and parallel texts. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Clarke’s commentary became a primary theological resource for nearly two centuries.
Source: Latter-day Saint Perspectives...

This tells us absolutely nothing, Richard. Smith completely changed the meaning of some passages in the Bible, with his so-called "translation" of the KJV. But then since it was already in English, why would Smith need to "translate" it? I mean, does one translate an English into English? Unless it was very archaic English, like from middle English into Modern English. But the KJV is in relatively modern English and understandable. In order to translate it truly, he would have had to have done so from Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies....did he?

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Hi Theo--Markk wrote this to me on here 5 years ago, about the shallowness of Mormon apologetics. Part of what he wrote is pertinent to your list of comparisons between the Bible and the BoM, and why the latter falls far short. I am going to cut and paste part of it here:



Their theology is wide, but shallow, because their faith is based upon a fictional book with no basis in reality, unlike the Bible, which is a record of a real people that still exist, that took place in real towns and real countries, many of which have the same location and names today. The BoM has none of that.


I think what Markk wrote here is very insightful. I am glad I archived it.

Markk's comment : "...Like those here, most often it came down to ad hom remarks..." is spot on.

 

[Bonnie]

I recently had a conversation with some LDS missionaries. I came into the discussion on day 2 after having been invited by a friend. The missionaries agreed that it was fine to invite me. One of the points of discussion was the reliability/unreliability of the Bible.

My question to the forum LDS, which document do you have that identifies all of the areas where the Bible is errant, wrongly translated, or missing information?

I ask this question due to the fact that if you believe parts of the Bible, it would be nice to know which parts.

They must say that, in order to cast doubt upon it, to make gullible non-Mormons more amenable to believing the BoM and Pearl of Great price and D and C....which they could claim is more reliable...

 

[Richard7]

Hi Theo--Markk wrote this to me on here 5 years ago, about the shallowness of Mormon apologetics. Part of what he wrote is pertinent to your list of comparisons between the Bible and the BoM, and why the latter falls far short. I am going to cut and paste part of it here:



Their theology is wide, but shallow, because their faith is based upon a fictional book with no basis in reality, unlike the Bible, which is a record of a real people that still exist, that took place in real towns and real countries, many of which have the same location and names today. The BoM has none of that.


I think what Markk wrote here is very insightful. I am glad I archived it.

Markk apparently Never read all the Books Hugh Nibley authored... so complex that Markk would have to stumble through them in audible awe.
I my self have read over half these books... I suggest you read one and then you will know of what complexity is... chuckle.

Since Cumorah​

Volume 7
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co., c1988.

The Prophetic Book of Mormon​

Volume 8
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1989.

Approaching Zion​

Volume 9
Added author: Don E. Norton
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1989.

Ancient State: The Rulers & the Ruled​

Volume 10
Added authors: Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991.

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young​

Volume 11
Added author: David J. Whittaker
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. : Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1991.

Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present​

Volume 12
Added author: Don E. Norton
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1992.

Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints​

Volume 13
Added authors: Don E. Norton, Shirley S. Ricks
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; [Provo, Utah] : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1994.

Abraham in Egypt​

Volume 14
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, c2000.

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity​

Volume 15
Added Authors: John F. Hall, John W. Welch
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, c2005.

The Message of Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment​

Volume 16
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, c2005.

Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple​

Volume 17
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, c2008.

 

[Magdalena]

Markk apparently Never read all the Books Hugh Nibley authored... so complex that Markk would have to stumble through them in audible awe.
I my self have read over half these books... I suggest you read one and then you will know of what complexity is... chuckle.

Since Cumorah​

Volume 7
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co., c1988.

The Prophetic Book of Mormon​

Volume 8
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1989.

Approaching Zion​

Volume 9
Added author: Don E. Norton
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1989.

Ancient State: The Rulers & the Ruled​

Volume 10
Added authors: Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991.

Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young​

Volume 11
Added author: David J. Whittaker
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. : Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1991.

Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present​

Volume 12
Added author: Don E. Norton
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1992.

Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints​

Volume 13
Added authors: Don E. Norton, Shirley S. Ricks
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; [Provo, Utah] : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, c1994.

Abraham in Egypt​

Volume 14
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, c2000.

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity​

Volume 15
Added Authors: John F. Hall, John W. Welch
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, c2005.

The Message of Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment​

Volume 16
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, c2005.

Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple​

Volume 17
Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, c2008.

Nibley’s daughter said he didn’t even believe most of the things he wrote. He did it because he was being paid to, and was receiving praise and notoriety from church leaders.