"As Far As It Is Translated Correctly": Observation or Warning?

In the April 2025 General Conference of the Church, The 32 speakers referred to the Bible 297 times. They referenced the Book of Mormon 226 times. The number of references was as follows:

·         New Testament — 229

·         Book of Mormon — 226

·         Doctrine and Covenants — 145

·         Old Testament — 68

·         Pearl of Great Price — 34

The Bible made up 42% of the scriptures cited by leaders, while restored scripture comprised the other 58%. The Bible is appreciated and revered by Church leaders. We need to understand what the obstacle is to appreciating it more fully within the Church.

While the Book of Mormon does refer to “plain and precious truths” being removed from the Bible (or the gospel), Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible restored these truths, and when considered alongside other revealed scripture (the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) it reveals itself to be doctrinally consistent. If there were more significant changes necessary, Joseph would have made them, and if not, Elder Ballard, and many, many other modern prophets who have spoken in defense of the Bible would have said so.

The pattern of disbelief does not end with the Bible. Those who disbelieve the Bible are usually well on their way to disbelieving other books of scripture. The Bible testifies of Christ, and Christ testified of the Bible. In John’s account, Christ said “For had ye believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46) If we believe the Bible is wrong, what does that say about how we view Christ?

The 8th article of faith has created a convenient whipping post for those wishing to beat up on the Bible, since people, with no other basis for believing so, dismiss the Bible based on it. They focus all their attention on the later part of the statement, “as far as it is translated correctly” with total disregard for the first part, the most important part, “We believe.”  There is no doubt that translations existed both before and after Joseph’s time that are suspect, but it is noteworthy that he says “translation”, and not “content.” He was obviously stating a concern in how the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts would be mistreated and misinterpreted, not the words written by the original authors and diligently copied for millennia. There are numerous translations in existence, new and old, that show how justified this concern would be.

The work of early Bible translators was largely based on the most complete manuscript of the ancient New Testament that had been assembled, the Textus Receptus. Through it we have the King James New Testament we use today, largely due to the work of William Tyndale, who utilized it in his translation of the New Testament. The Textus Receptus was also influential to Martin Luther. In the 18^th century, the Textus Receptus came under attack, largely due to the accessibility of older manuscripts, in particular the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Both manuscripts are believed to predate the Codex Receptus and were thus deemed by many scholars to be more accurate representations of the original author’s work. What was not widely known outside of scholarly circles was the origin of these manuscripts. Both originate in Alexandria, Egypt. This alone does not pose a problem, but when coupled with the Gnostic dominance in Alexandria, potential issues do arise. Gnostics believed that Jesus was simply a human who had attained enlightenment through gnosis and taught his followers to do the same. Others felt that Jesus had no form and simply appeared human. In either case he could not have been born of a virgin, crucified or resurrected. They believed that a form of salvation came through knowledge of “hidden secrets” and not through faith in Christ.

Verses that are largely omitted in these Gnostic influenced texts reveal something of the Gnostic beliefs about Christ. The reference in Matthew 15:6 about Mary, the mother of Christ is omitted. Matthew 20:23 is edited to remove the reference to “and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.” Luke 9:55-56 is equally modified to conform to Gnostic teachings: the phrase “and He said: ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them’” is removed. Because Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was actually the Son of God, Luke 23:34 is modified to remove the phrase “And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” In Acts 8, the confession by the Ethiopian eunuch is removed: “And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

While each of these changes, representing a denial of Christ and His mission is significant, none has had the impact of the removal of the last 12 verses of Mark. In many editions of the Bible, notes are still be found questioning the validity of these verses based on these gnostic texts. What do these verses pertain to? This is where Mark records the appearances of the resurrected Lord to Mary Magdelene, others and to the remaining eleven apostles, where he commissioned them to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”  These versus conclude with Christ’s ascension into heaven. The common belief of many scholars who accept these changes, is that these versus were added sometime after the original writing of Mark’s Gospel, since the Codex Vaticanus was written in the 4^th century. They ignore the Gnostic influence. However, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 directly in his commentary, which was written in 180 A.D. Tatian the Assyrian in the Diatessaron compiled the four gospels in about 150 A.D. and included the full text of Mark, including these verses. From this it is clear that the influence of gnostic scribes has crept into modern translations of the Bible long after early church fathers branded them as heretics.

It should be noted that Karl Lachmann printed the first version of the Alexandrian texts in 1831 (an interesting year, considering the profound influence this work would have on the increased attacks on the Bible). Westcott and Hort began their work to bring these Gnostic influenced texts to the world in 1853, and after 28 years work, published their Greek New Testament. They did nothing to hide their hatred for the Textus Receptus. While in college they founded at least two occultic secret societies, and while outwardly portraying themselves as orthodox Christians, their work speaks for itself. They denied the Bible as history and modified the meaning of resurrection and ascension to fit their gnostic tendencies. Their work became foundational in a range of Biblical translations that would come in the late 19^th and 20^th centuries. Plain and precious truths were indeed removed in this process. Thankfully, the King James Bible, and many other translations, avoid these errors, being firmly based on the text of the Textus Receptus. Popular translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the Revised Version (RV) utilize this gnostic-influenced source, while the King James Version (KJV), and the New King James Version (NKJV) utilize the Textus Receptus and remain the preferred translations.

It is significant as well to understand that the Articles of Faith themselves were seen, even in their time, as needing explanation. In 1850, Orson Hyde printed them in his Frontier Guardian, and felt it was important to modify the 8^th Article to read, “We believe the word of God recorded in the Bible, we also believe the word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.” The version by Orson Pratt in 1884 even includes this statement “The gospel in the ‘Book of Mormon’, is the same as that in the New Testament, and is revealed in great plainness, so that no one that reads it can misunderstand its principles. …”

We cannot continue to dismiss or degrade the Bible without undermining all of God’s word. If we have specific issues with the Bible, or most likely its translation in a specific case, we should do the work to reconcile or correct our belief. The Bible testifies of Christ and is a necessary tool in taking the gospel to the World and continuing the work it began thousands of years ago.