The Joseph Smith Translation

[Vance]

Actually, no. It is now inconsistent with the whole message of Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Which, of course, is a misrepresentation of what I said and demonstrated.

Joseph Smith didn't even have the nerve or sense to make other changes to make the rest of the book consistent with his (Joseph's) theology.

Bowman doing necromancy again.

Worse still, Joseph also failed in Romans 4:5 to delete the "not" in the first clause, "But to him that worketh not...." To be consistent, he should have deleted this "not." He could then have claimed that the KJV simply got the "not" in the wrong place. That isn't true or even plausible, but even more incredible is his adding "not" in the second clause while ignoring the fact that in doing so he was contradicting the first clause. Paul's point in both clauses is the same: God reckons our faith in his promise of mercy, realized in Christ, as righteousness despite the fact that we don't do the works we should (clause 1) and are by disposition, habit, and act ungodly (clause 2).

This has nothing to do with my post.

Bowman, you come across as someone jealous of Joseph. Jealous of him because more people accept him as a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ than even know of your existence.

[KevinG]

On the basis of a ludicrous misreading of the Bible...

...The whole sermon is an embarrassing display of sophomoric reasoning.

Good evening Rob. You might want to visit the civility thread.

[Vance]

Actually, no. It is now inconsistent with the whole message of Paul's epistle to the Romans.

And, actually, it is now not inconsistent with the whole message of Paul's epistle.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 2:6 (God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin (ungodliness) is death; . . .

Just inconsistent with Evangelical theology.

[kolipoki09]

This is the same sermon in which Joseph Smith, amateur Hebrew scholar, argued that Genesis 1:1 referred to a plurality of Gods because elohim is a plural form. The whole sermon is an embarrassing display of sophomoric reasoning.

An "amateur Hebrew scholar?" That's interesting you say that, considering I've heard Richard Bushman and Hugh Nibley argue that Smith's Hebrew was good enough that by the time he died in 1844, he would have been well-qualified for a graduate program on the subject. It's easy to brush over the whole sermon as "embarrassing....sophomoric reasoning" while continually failing to engage a multiplicity of nuances within the text which don't support your opinion of it.

[Mudcat]

I think it is interesting that if JS was "translating" the Bible, so to speak. That he blew past the Marcan Appendix and Johanine Comma. These are known critical places where addition seems evident, yet JS doesn't do much in the way of straightening them out.

What is a good explanation for that?

[Vance]

I think it is interesting that if JS was "translating" the Bible, so to speak. That he blew past the Marcan Appendix and Johanine Comma. These are known critical places where addition seems evident, yet JS doesn't do much in the way of straightening them out.

What is a good explanation for that?

Do they convey a message that is doctrinally erroneous?

[mfbukowski]

Good evening Rob. You might want to visit the civility thread.

He dishes it out, but can't take it.

[Ares]

Enough dishing it out period.

Rob Bowman we don't allow personal remarks even if the subject of those remarks is dead.

Consider yourselves warned.

[Xander]

What "modern scholarship" are you referring to? Talking points from Sandra Tanner?

No.

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet. No one thinks Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father's Father, including Mormon Bible scholars.

Yet, Joseph Smith based an entire doctrine on this misunderstanding. This generally isn't something we might expect from true Prophets. Their job is to tell us what the scriptures mean, not what they don't mean.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Xander

[TAO]

No.

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet. No one thinks Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father's Father, including Mormon Bible scholars.

Yet, Joseph Smith based an entire doctrine on this misunderstanding. This generally isn't something we might expect from true Prophets. Their job is to tell us what the scriptures mean, not what they don't mean.

Perhaps. It sure can seem that kopli is onto something though. In the least, it refers to Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. If not more.

Also... scholars sometimes get things very wrong. Look at the horses native to North (and South?) America thread. For years, we didn't think such, but yes, horses are native to the continent, and didn't go extinct.

As of such, I wouldn't say it's a 'misunderstanding', simply because some scholars disagree with it. Even most scholars.

And if 1832 is earlier than his translation of the Bible, I would say that the idea has even more validity (considering it's talked of in D&C 76:50-60, and in other places).

Oh... also... did you know that JS himself translated that very verse, Rev 1:6? It reads:

4 Now this is the testimony of John to the seven servants who are over the seven churches in Asia. Grace unto you, and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is to come; who hath sent forth his angel from before his throne, to testify unto those who are the seven servants over the seven churches.5 Therefore, I, John, the faithful witness, bear record of the things which were delivered me of the angel, and from Jesus Christ the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

6 And unto him who loved us, be glory; who washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.

So it seems that those verses are referring to Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father after all. =) Joseph got it right on. =D.

From where did you think he used Revelations 1:6 to support exaltation exactly? What was your source, in other words? =)

If you want references to exaltation, and why we believe such, these would be the best ones: http://lds.org/scrip...ng=eng&letter=m

Best Wishes, =)

TAO

Edited June 24, 2011 by TAO

[kolipoki09]

No.

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet. No one thinks Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father's Father, including Mormon Bible scholars.

Yet, Joseph Smith based an entire doctrine on this misunderstanding. This generally isn't something we might expect from true Prophets. Their job is to tell us what the scriptures mean, not what they don't mean.

Which Mormon Bible scholars have come out and claimed Joseph interpreted Rev. 1:6 incorrectly? I'd like to see specific references.

Also, which non-Mormon Bible scholars (that is, those in academia) have addressed Joseph's use of Rev. 1:6 specifically and published on it (preferably in peer-reviewed academic journals on the subject).

To assume Bible scholars reject Joseph's interpretation that this verse (and a number of others) regarding the significance of kingship and deification in the New Testament is a gross overstatement.

Read this, and get back to me.

[Vance]

For example, the JST still leaves Romans 5:6 -- just one chapter later -- saying,

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6 KJV, JST).

Which, unfortunately for you, doesn't support your premise. Christ died for all not just the ungodly.

2 Cor. 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

And the fact that Christ died for the "ungodly" (and for everyone else) doesn't require that the ungodly be justified.

Your logic chain is missing a few links.

Worse still, Joseph also failed in Romans 4:5 to delete the "not" in the first clause, "But to him that worketh not...." To be consistent, he should have deleted this "not."

True, he could have done THAT, but he didn't and your point is irrelevant.

He could then have claimed that the KJV simply got the "not" in the wrong place.

True, he could have done THAT, but he didn't and your point is irrelevant.

That isn't true or even plausible, but even more incredible is his adding "not" in the second clause while ignoring the fact that in doing so he was contradicting the first clause.

A bald assertion, base on a faulty premise.

Paul's point in both clauses is the same:

Not required.

God reckons our faith in his promise of mercy, realized in Christ, as righteousness despite the fact that we don't do the works we should (clause 1) and are by disposition, habit, and act ungodly (clause 2).

A false conclusion driven by the false premises you bring to the text.

Why don't you let the rest of the Bible drive your understanding instead of letting your understanding drive the rest of the Bible?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Ares,

Thanks for the warning, I appreciate it and will take it to heart. I promise to do my part in increasing civility here.

Enough dishing it out period.

Rob Bowman we don't allow personal remarks even if the subject of those remarks is dead.

Consider yourselves warned.

[Rob Bowman]

kolipoli,

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Our objection to Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 is on a very specific point, namely, his claim that in the KJV translation "God and his Father," the word Father refers to God's Father -- that is, a Father of the being known as God the Father; in other words, a Grandfather God. That is the interpretation of Revelation 1:6 that is wrong. Few if any non-Mormon scholars have bothered to critique Joseph's view on this point, but I am a non-Mormon, a biblical scholar, and I have studied the construction found in the Greek text here in great depth. Also, as I pointed out, modern translations render the phrase "his God and Father," which clearly rules out Joseph's theological inference from the text.

Which Mormon Bible scholars have come out and claimed Joseph interpreted Rev. 1:6 incorrectly? I'd like to see specific references.

Also, which non-Mormon Bible scholars (that is, those in academia) have addressed Joseph's use of Rev. 1:6 specifically and published on it (preferably in peer-reviewed academic journals on the subject).

To assume Bible scholars reject Joseph's interpretation that this verse (and a number of others) regarding the significance of kingship and deification in the New Testament is a gross overstatement.

Read this, and get back to me.

[Mudcat]

Do they convey a message that is doctrinally erroneous?

I don't understand the relevance here if it was added after the fact, then it has no truth value as a historic fact.

Looking at the Marcan Appendix, it depicts Christ as saying something to the effect of," 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. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

If this was an addition rather than an actual fact, then there doesn't seem to be a good reason to use it as a basis for doctrine, even if it is doctrinally consistent in some respects with other statements in the Bible.

I certainly find the notion that Christ is suggesting we should make a business of handling snakes in Christ's name as doctrinally spurious given the remaining context of the NT.

[Vance]

kolipoli,

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Our objection to Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 is on a very specific point, namely, his claim that in the KJV translation "God and his Father," the word Father refers to God's Father -- that is, a Father of the being known as God the Father; in other words, a Grandfather God.

You can object to it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate understanding of the phrase in question.

καὶ ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ

and priests to-THE God and father of-him

And as we both know τῷ θεῷ (THE GOD) refers to God, the Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

kolipoli,

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Our objection to Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 is on a very specific point, namely, his claim that in the KJV translation "God and his Father," the word Father refers to God's Father -- that is, a Father of the being known as God the Father; in other words, a Grandfather God.

Also, as I pointed out, modern translations render the phrase "his God and Father," which clearly rules out Joseph's theological inference from the text.

IT was my understanding that you are correct here, I would however like to see a literal Greek translation from you just for the sake of the arguments.

Thanks Rob.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[David T]

You can object to it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate understanding of the phrase in question.

καὶ ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ

and priests to-THE God and father of-him

And as we both know τῷ θεῷ (THE GOD) refers to God, the Father.

Only if you leave out verse 5, which shows that Jesus is the one making the individuals kings and priests to serve "The God and father of him [Christ]".

Like if I said my brother in law was giving me training to be a better employee for the Boss and father of him.

My brother-in-law works for his dad. So do I. In context, weird English construct aside, I don't think anyone would think it was saying he was training me to be a better employee for his Boss' dad. Maybe his father in addition to another boss (which is possible, because his dad works with a partner, who is also our boss). But not the Boss' father.

We as Latter-day Saints don't need to defend Joseph's misreading of the KJV, anymore than we need to defend NT writers' misreading of the OT. It's most likely Joseph had already postulated the concept of a genealogy of gods, and saw in that text what appeared to be a prooftext/confirmation.

Edited June 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

I don't understand the relevance here if it was added after the fact, then it has no truth value as a historic fact.

You seem to be under the impression that IF God were inspiring JS during the "translation" process THEN He would have made this known to JS.

I am not operating under that impression/assumption.

I don't see anything that is so doctrinally grievous that would necessitate a correction or removal here.

Looking at the Marcan Appendix, it depicts Christ as saying something to the effect of," 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. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

If this was an addition rather than an actual fact, then there doesn't seem to be a good reason to use it as a basis for doctrine, even if it is doctrinally consistent in some respects with other statements in the Bible.

Well, since neither we (LDS) nor JS derive our doctrine from these, I don't see a problem.

I certainly find the notion that Christ is suggesting we should make a business of handling snakes in Christ's name as doctrinally spurious given the remaining context of the NT.

Well, I can see your point if that is your understanding of what it is saying. I don't take it to mean it in that way.

[Vance]

Only if you leave out verse 5, which shows that Jesus is the one making the individuals kings and priests to serve "The God and father of him [Christ]".

You don't have to exclude verse 5 to get there.

We as Latter-day Saints don't need to defend Joseph's misreading of the KJV, anymore than we need to defend NT writers' misreading of the OT. It's most likely Joseph had already postulated the concept of a genealogy of gods, and saw in that text what appeared to be a prooftext/confirmation.

Yup,

But the fact that we don't NEED to defend it doesn't mean that it isn;t defensible. In this case, it is very defensible.

[David T]

You don't have to exclude verse 5 to get there.

Yup,

But the fact that we don't NEED to defend it doesn't mean that it isn;t defensible. In this case, it is very defensible.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any legitimate, convincing, or credible defense. Lots of affirmations that it does work notwithstanding. Do you have any references to legitimate published defenses to that reading?

Edited June 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any legitimate, convincing, or credible defense. Lots of affirmations that it does work notwithstanding. Do you have any references to legitimate published defenses to that reading?

I am SURE you could find some "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack, just ask Bowman.

He can even fabricate it for you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He can even fabricate it for you.

Dude!

Don't you think this is a bit much?

[Vance]

There is a similar phrase in Matt 6:33

βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ

kingdom of-THE GOD and the righteousness of-him

So, to Whom does "the righteousness" belong?

[Vance]

Dude!

Don't you think this is a bit much?

What?

You don't think Bowman can fabricate a "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack on JS's reading of Rev 1:6?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.