Js Revised Bible

[savedbygrace]

Hi everyone, I belive though may be wrong that Joseph Smith revised the Bible, if that is true why doesn't the official LDS church use it instead of the KJV which I believe you teach is corrupt. Just a thought, if you have something better why not use it?

[Buzzard]

For one thing, the copyright is owned by the Community of Christ/RLDS church, not the LDS church. Also, in the current version of the scriptures that you can buy at distribution centers and LDS bookstores, the footnotes do references to changes in the text made by JS. Short changes are quoted in the footnote, longer, more involved changes are in a section located back with the Bible Dictionary and Topical Guide located in the back of said scriptures. Most LDS who have read scriptures with any regularity are familiar with many/most of the changes he made to the KJV script.

[bluebell]

SBG, it's also important to realize that JS didn't revise the entire bible, he revised a few sections and verses of it.

[David T]

The CoC only has the copyright on the printed and edited edition of the text they use. The CofC has given the Church full access to the manuscripts (BYU sells an electronic version of the complete text and photos of the manuscript). Deseret Book has published complete editions of all the changes in the Old Testament and New Testament, far beyond (and in some cases more accurate than) what is represented in the 1979 LDS Edition of the Bible. the Joseph Smith papers online already has several portions of the manuscript - with transcriptions - online for free.

In other words, copyright doesn't hold the Church back from creating their own full edition of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision.

Frankly, I think the Church might be in flux as in how to interpret and fully use the JST. For the longest time, the unchallenged understanding and tradition was that it was a restoration of the original ancient bible text. It is more and more being understood as a modern inspired doctrinal and contextual update (IE, "This is what the bible writers would have written if they had the understanding and context Joseph had at the time he was working on it")- in the form of a midrash or targum - than a view of a more historically accurate ur-text. It is literally a Bible 'upgraded' for a new generation. The Bible: Special Edition.

In other words, in this context, it would not need to replace the ancient Bible, but stand as a separate modern inspired doctrinal work, parallel to, and in many ways interlocking with, the Doctrine and Covenants.

Either way, it's an important and very significant work in Joseph's prophetic career. A study of it in the context of when the particular passages were written, in concert with the contemporary revelation texts (as found in the Doctrine and Covenants - but especially the earliest manuscripts) is incredibly enlightening.

Edited February 19, 2013 by David T

[Alan]

Actually, I believe the KJV's days are numbered.

I believe the church will move on this in the future and choose another official version.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Alan

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Joseph Smith revision of the Bible has a bit of a history, that usually isn't very well known. More on that in a minute. The general consensus among those who have studied the Joseph Smith manuscripts that he produced during his revision recognize four major groups of changes that he made:

1. Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
   
2. Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
   
3. Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a present day situation.
   
4. Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.
   

For the first two categories, its easy to see where they potentially occur, because we have sections with major additions or major modifications. Most of these types of changes have been placed in an appendix to the KJV that the church publishes. They are not considered canonical. Two exceptions are brief sections that Joseph Smith published during his lifetime - modifications to Genesis and to the Gospel of Matthew. These were canonized as scripture in the Book of Moses, and as Joseph Smith - Matthew.

The vast majority of changes though come as the third and fourth types. Depending on who you talk to, there will be a range of opinions on which of these changes are considered inspired, and which are simply attempts to harmonize the text. A good example for me comes in the story of Noah. There, in several places, the King James text suggests that God repented of this or that action. Joseph Smith changes this so that it reads very differently - Noah is the one repenting (not God). This is an attempt to deal with a theological problem of having God "repent". The problem is that the term translated as "repented" is used repeatedly in the text to refer to God, and carries a range of meanings (not just to repent) - and this was intended as part of the narrative - so that we would read it (the same word) in different ways as the story progresses - it binds the narrative together and forces us to move our understanding of the entire narrative as the narrative moves forward. Joseph Smith changed this because he thought it was inappropriate for God to repent, and has Noah repenting. A really great translation isn't possible because the word play in Hebrew doesn't translate well into English, but, Joseph Smith makes the text harder to understand in its original context with his changes. There are other examples.

So while we could argue that in places the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) could represent a better translation, you could argue in places that it clearly doesn't. And without some inspired process to determine which is which, the decision was to simply not worry about it.

Historically, the LDS Church heading west was not allowed to take the several manuscripts with them. A hand made copy was made of some of it, and it went west, but when the RLDS Church first published an edition, it was noted that there were several differences between this copy and what had been published. This created a sense of distrust with the RLDS publication. Part of this was caused by some long held traditional misconceptions over what the JST was. After the manuscripts became available for a wider scholarly study (only about seventy years ago now), a lot of this distrust went away, but, at that point any sort of sense that the JST was something that could replace the KJV was largely gone. On top of this, it was during this same time that there was a relative explosion in popular Bible translations. Given the use of the KJV and perhaps an apparent support of the KJV in the JST, some leaders of the LDS Church began promoting the KJV as far better and more accurate than other translations. This was probably regrettable in hind sight, but at least for a while, the LDS Church pushed and promoted a view that was not too terribly different from a KJV only sort of perspective. And while there may be a sense that the text was corrupted, most of that rhetoric stemmed from the earlier days of the church when early LDS members brought that unhappiness with the KJV with them into the church (noting along with others in the early 19th century problems with italics and the like). The idea of a corrupted Bible isn't so prevalent in today's LDS Church. LDS members in general though are a bit more open to textual criticism of the Bible because of their history.

The other thing that its worth noting is that the KJV is the officially recognized translation used by the English speaking LDS Church. We have favored editions in other languages, but we have never produced our own "translation" for use.

I think that while the main membership probably prefers the LDS edition of the KJV, with its LDS friendly study aids and cross referencing, most of the members engaged in biblical studies probably prefer other editions (I know, I do). Additionally, more recent converts with little previous exposure may prefer to continue using their NIV (or other translation of choice). Without the need for inerrancy in the text, there isn't really a theological basis for preferring the KJV, the decision is mostly seen right now as a practical one.

Ben M.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[altersteve]

Hi everyone, I belive though may be wrong that Joseph Smith revised the Bible, if that is true why doesn't the official LDS church use it instead of the KJV which I believe you teach is corrupt. Just a thought, if you have something better why not use it?

No. We believe the translation of the KJV was an inspired process and the men behind it were inspired by God for that purpose. What gave you the idea that we believe it is "corrupt"?

Edited February 19, 2013 by altersteve

[Freedom]

I think David T and Benjamin McGuire have effectively summed up the matter. We get hung up on semantics. We read Joseph Smith Translation and make assumptions of value of the text based on the title.

[Buzzard]

Actually, I believe the KJV's days are numbered.

I believe the church will move on this in the future and choose another official version.

Did you catch the "Fires of Faith" miniseries on BYUTV?

If not, you can watch all three episodes here:

http://byutv.org/seethegood/post/Watch-all-three-episodes-of-Fires-of-Faith.aspx

Based on what it has to say about Tyndale and the work that went into the KJV, it might be a while before the KJV goes away.

[savedbygrace]

No. We believe the translation of the KJV was an inspired process and the men behind it were inspired by God for that purpose. What gave you the idea that we believe it is "corrupt"?

Sorry,poor choice of words, but you believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, the inference being that there are parts where it is not. Is it possible for your church to clearly define which parts are not correct specifically? And can a revision be undertaken without the original texts?

[TAO]

Saved, it generally isn't clearly defined, until there is a revelation of sorts, or a prophet says so. For instance, it has been revelaed that Songs of Solomon isn't Doctrinal Material (secular persay). That isn't to say we remove it, but it's not considered authoritative, if you know what I mean. (it still can contain useful wisdom though).

[rongo]

We need to also keep in mind the fact that almost half of the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon are word-for-word identical to the KJV. This would be another layer of complication in selecting another version as the "official" LDS Bible in English-speaking countries.

It's also a moot point in the majority of the Church that does not use the KJV, because it does not speak English as the primary language. There are a multitude of "official" Bibles in these other countries; the Church doesn't go and translate the KJV into these languages (which would create a different set of problems).

[Damien the Leper]

The Inspired Version never really meant much to me. I, personally, don't find much worth in it.

[Thunderfire]

Hi everyone, I belive though may be wrong that Joseph Smith revised the Bible, if that is true why doesn't the official LDS church use it instead of the KJV which I believe you teach is corrupt. Just a thought, if you have something better why not use it?

While I cannot speak to why the LDS does not use the Inspired Version, I can speak to the Inspired Version having used it most of my life.

Much of what is contained in the Genesis account of the Inspired Version is found in the "Pearl of Great Price." Some of the additions are also contained in the Doctrine and Covenants as well. We find mainly three books that received major revisions: Genesis, Isaiah, and Matthew. No changes whatsoever are found in: Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, and the 2nd & 3rd Epistles of John and they read exactly as the King James Version. This is because the manuscript noted all but Ecclesiastes as "correct."

Many believe the work was not fully completed. As example, in some cases you will find a change in Matthew where the companion verse in one of the other gospels was not changed to reflect the change in Matthew.

Another perplexing issue is this: In church history we have account of Moroni visiting Joseph three times in the night and quoting specific passages of scripture, explaining what they mean. Note that Moroni quoted Malachi very differently in the testimony, yet this change was not made in the Inspired Version and it still reads the same as the King James Version.

There may be other reasons why it is not used. Suffice to say, while it offers fascinating insights and clarification (Adams baptism, far more about Enoch), it was never a "completed work" being finalized after Joseph's death. Hope this helps!

[cinepro]

Hi everyone, I belive though may be wrong that Joseph Smith revised the Bible, if that is true why doesn't the official LDS church use it instead of the KJV which I believe you teach is corrupt. Just a thought, if you have something better why not use it?

This is a good article on the subject:

Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the Bible

In view of the fact that the Prophet did not complete the work, and because the new translation is published and copyrighted by the Reorganized Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not accept it as authoritative, although it is read by many Latter-day Saints. While it is true that the Prophet intended to make additional changes in the new translation, we also recognize that one can benefit from the many improvements that he did make.

Edited February 19, 2013 by cinepro

[Freedom]

God does not speak through ancient texts. If the bible was corrected and all items restored, there would not have been a need for modern revelation. Some corrections were made to the bible, but any errors or omissions are restored through the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. We do not have the original manuscripts so there is no way of knowing if what we have now has any resemblance to the original work. We rely on modern scripture to bring clarity to passages in the bible. I don't think there is a legitimate biblical scholar alive who would take issue with the statement 'as far as it is translated correctly'. If it was translated correctly, why are so many Christians calling for newer translations? Why are there so many commentaries providing alternative translations for key words in order to bring greater clarity to the text?

[David T]

This is a good article on the subject:

Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the Bible

I note that the article was from 1972. Even before the selections were in an LDS bible, and before we had full access to photographs of the manuscripts. Things have changed a lot since then. One can even see Robert J. Matthews' perspectives be adjusted by degrees as the years went on. When he died a couple years ago, he was rightfully honored from the pulpit as 'the authority' on the JST.

[cinepro]

I note that the article was from 1972. Even before the selections were in an LDS bible, and before we had full access to photographs of the manuscripts. Things have changed a lot since then. One can even see Robert J. Matthews' perspectives be adjusted by degrees as the years went on. When he died a couple years ago, he was rightfully honored from the pulpit as 'the authority' on the JST.

I was thinking of a more recent article. Must have been this one:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-joseph-smith-translation-plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng

[Storm Rider]

We need to also keep in mind the fact that almost half of the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon are word-for-word identical to the KJV. This would be another layer of complication in selecting another version as the "official" LDS Bible in English-speaking countries.

It's also a moot point in the majority of the Church that does not use the KJV, because it does not speak English as the primary language. There are a multitude of "official" Bibles in these other countries; the Church doesn't go and translate the KJV into these languages (which would create a different set of problems).

Only in an English language context does this hold any logic. In other languages we do not use the KJV.

[savedbygrace]

was theKJV not translated into other languages? Also can a translation be a translation without the original texts. Also from what point do you revise something, how do you know which parts need it, and without the original texts how do you know your revision is correct?

[altersteve]

was theKJV not translated into other languages? Also can a translation be a translation without the original texts.

Joseph often referred to the JST as a "translation," and we therefore do the same, but in his day that word had a much broader definition.

Also from what point do you revise something, how do you know which parts need it, and without the original texts how do you know your revision is correct?

The Holy Ghost. That's how Joseph Smith did it.

Edited February 20, 2013 by altersteve

[savedbygrace]

Joseph often referred to the JST as a "translation," and we therefore do the same, but in his day that word had a much broader definition

The Holy Ghost. That's how Joseph Smith did it.

Ah, why didn't I think of that? This of course is the LDS perspective, but to those of us outside that perspective JS may have been changing scripture that didn't fit with his dogma.

How do you know that translation had broader definition in JS day, what exactly do you mean?

Edited February 20, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hi everyone, I belive though may be wrong that Joseph Smith revised the Bible, if that is true why doesn't the official LDS church use it instead of the KJV which I believe you teach is corrupt. Just a thought, if you have something better why not use it?

IMHO nothing can compare to poetry of the KJV, all other versions, pale in comparison. Edited February 20, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[savedbygrace]

IMHO nothing can compare to poetry of the KJV, all other versions pale in comparison.

I agree that there is a poetic element here but the archaic language can sometimes get in the way, that's why many people have several different translations

Edited February 20, 2013 by savedbygrace

[rongo]

Only in an English language context does this hold any logic. In other languages we do not use the KJV.

I know. That's what I said in the second half of my post.