Joseph Smith And Hebrews 6:1

[LDSMusic483]

If this is your position on the NT texts than at least I can understand why you see it the way you do. However it seems to me that there is more than enough evidence that suggests otherwise. It is up to us each as individuals to determine if we have honestly investigated this stance on the NT writings. In the end we are left to make our own choice.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

You have evidence that shows that todays current translations are taken directly from the letter that the author of Hebrews wrote? Do tell!

[The_Monk]

I don't think it's a good rule-of-thumb to assume that a) JST changes come from textual corruption, and represent original text or b ) anything in the Bible that doesn't sound like LDS doctrine is due to textual corruption.

[LDSMusic483]

I don't think it's a good rule-of-thumb to assume that a) JST changes come from textual corruption, and represent original text or b ) anything in the Bible that doesn't sound like LDS doctrine is due to textual corruption.

Oh I don't think it's necessarily a rule of thumb. But Joseph seemed to be alluding to that in his using of that scripture. And I would never assume that just because something doesn't sound like LDS doctrine is because of a textual corruption.

[Sentinus]

You have evidence that shows that todays current translations are taken directly from the letter that the author of Hebrews wrote? Do tell!

I provided a few links earlier in this thread, that one could use to start an investigation of the reliability of the NT texts. When compared to the evidence available for the BOM for example it makes at least as much sense to believe that the NT is trustworthy in its context. However I will agree that at some point ALL of us will have to make a leap of faith. It all depends on who and what you are willing to place faith in..

TO ALL: I have really enjoyed so far this discussion, I have found it very enlightening. Especially LDS music's comments on the possible intent of Joseph's statement regarding the Translators. This I can see both ways, however I would think that those printing the manuals would choose different verbage to express what they are trying to teach. Confusion from all perspectives could be avoided.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

[LDSMusic483]

I provided a few links earlier in this thread, that one could use to start an investigation of the reliability of the NT texts. When compared to the evidence available for the BOM for example it makes at least as much sense to believe that the NT is trustworthy in its context. However I will agree that at some point ALL of us will have to make a leap of faith. It all depends on who and what you are willing to place faith in..

TO ALL: I have really enjoyed so far this discussion, I have found it very enlightening. Especially LDS music's comments on the possible intent of Joseph's statement regarding the Translators. This I can see both ways, however I would think that those printing the manuals would choose different verbage to express what they are trying to teach. Confusion from all perspectives could be avoided.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

The thing is, we don't have the original documents to compare to what we have today. Now this passage that we are discussing, the differences don't seem to be major, atleast the same conclusion can be arrived to depending on how you look at the passage. JS just wanted to make sure that there were no errors on the intent of the message. Would don't leave behind the principles, but we use them as a foundation and then move towards perfection.

[Glenn101]

The thing is, we don't have the original documents to compare to what we have today. Now this passage that we are discussing, the differences don't seem to be major, atleast the same conclusion can be arrived to depending on how you look at the passage. JS just wanted to make sure that there were no errors on the intent of the message. Would don't leave behind the principles, but we use them as a foundation and then move towards perfection.

And then there is the just as great a possibility that Paul was not talking about progressing from fundamentals to perfection, but warning against apostasy from those principles. Look at verses 4 thru 6 of that same chapter.

"4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

This is an exegisis that an evangelical will not make, but verses 4-6 are talking about apostasy. Verse 4 connects it to verses 1-3.

Glenn

[cdowis]

This doesn't answer Josephs claim. I didn't make the claim he did. So it is up to those that believe his words to defend IMO.

JS was a living prophet, and made corrections as dictated by the Holy Ghost.

Now, if you don't accept that, this whole discussion will go elsewhere, such as the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, and modern revelation.

[NauvooSaint]

Sentinus,

Thank you for sharing this study on Hebrews 6:1. I've found it thought-provoking. The LDS refer to the IV (Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures) as the JST (Joseph Smith Translation), when in reality it is not a translation from manuscripts or another language. It's an inspired revision.

I see that the intent of Joseph was to clarify what appeared to him to be an error in Hebrews 6:1. The original manuscript of Joseph Smith's Inspired Version is held in Independence, MO in the Community of Christ temple museum, which is open to the public. Joseph used various scribes to assist him in the work of revision and there were some books of the Bible that did not have any revisions done in the text. The Inspired Version was first published in 1867 by the RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). It's been debated for years whether it was completed by Joseph and ready for publication or not between the LDS and RLDS churches. I personally believe it was.

The quote you gave of Joseph in the manual mentioned may or may not be accurate. If it gives a footnote to the original source for the quote, that might be helpful to verify. There have been times when things or teachings have been attributed to Joseph Smith that aren't always true or accurate. An example: LDS 4th Article of Faith vs. Wentworth Letter published during Joseph's lifetime in the church's official newspaper 'Times and Seasons', vol. 3, pg. 709.

Since this topic of the IV or (JST) is of interest to you, you might consider these materials:

'Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development', by Richard P. Howard (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1995)

'Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible; A Complete Parallel Column Comparison of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures and the King James Authorized Version', by F. Henry Edwards (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1970)

"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, A History and Commentary' by Robert J. Matthews (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975)

Regards,

Bradley.

[TrespassersW]

Hbr 6:1

[Calm]

Especially LDS music's comments on the possible intent of Joseph's statement regarding the Translators. This I can see both ways, however I would think that those printing the manuals would choose different verbage to express what they are trying to teach. Confusion from all perspectives could be avoided.

I may be confusing comments by other prophets and church leaders expressing gratitude for the great efforts made in preserving the Bible for us to have in this day and age with JS (see http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display...-690-29,00.html for instance), but I'm pretty sure that while he did talk about error creeping in, that his over all attitude was one of a positive nature. Certainly he taught more from the Bible than he did the Book of Mormon.