Js Revised Bible

[altersteve]

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.

He didn't really change too much. For the most part, he was expanding, clarifying, and generally commenting on the biblical text based on modern revelation.

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

I just meant that "Joseph used the term ['translation'] in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization," and as far as I understand other people used it that way as well, but I'm not entirely sure (see here). So it's not really a "translation" in the typical sense of translating something from one language to another, but Joseph didn't intend for it to be understood that way. A quick search on dictionary.com shows that one definition of the word is "to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret," which is exactly what the JST intends to do.

[bluebell]

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.

It's probably very similar to the way that you know that the New Testament is God's word, even though those outside of the Christian perspective (such as Jews, for example) believe that it's just men writing things that fit their own dogma.

[savedbygrace]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine. How fantastic, wouldn't you think that the Holy Ghost would have protected this work and kept it in the True church so that its retranslation could continue to its completion. Then we would all be able to be better instructed by it as a direct translation from God wouldn't we, but maybe the HG didn't think of that

[altersteve]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine. How fantastic, wouldn't you think that the Holy Ghost would have protected this work and kept it in the True church so that its retranslation could continue to its completion. Then we would all be able to be better instructed by it as a direct translation from God wouldn't we, but maybe the HG didn't think of that

Clearly God thought that what we currently have of the JST is, for the time being, enough. Simple as that.

[Alan]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine. How fantastic, wouldn't you think that the Holy Ghost would have protected this work and kept it in the True church so that its retranslation could continue to its completion. Then we would all be able to be better instructed by it as a direct translation from God wouldn't we, but maybe the HG didn't think of that

The work of restoration is unfolding. It is not a one time event.

There is still much to be revealed and restored.

[savedbygrace]

Really, can't wait, but hope it is more reliable than the Book of Abraham farce, which without a doubt showed JS to be the fake that he was.

[bluebell]

Really, can't wait, but hope it is more reliable than the Book of Abraham farce, which without a doubt showed JS to be the fake that he was.

[volgadon]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine.

If he was a prophet, what was wrong with that? I'm not expecting you to embrace LDS teachings, but if, for the sake of discussion, you were to allow that he was a prophet authorised of God, would there be a problem with this?

[savedbygrace]

If he was the prophet he claimed to be why would he need to do it as he had brought forth the BoM which was supposed to be the most correct book that could lead men to Christ....no need to revise anything I would have thought. However......IF in this case is an enormous word

[volgadon]

If he was the prophet he claimed to be why would he need to do it as he had brought forth the BoM which was supposed to be the most correct book that could lead men to Christ....no need to revise anything I would have thought. However......IF in this case is an enormous word

Don't dodge the question. We aren't talking about the BoM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine.

Or perhaps I have another idea, that perhaps a prophet of God, this is exactly what I would expect to happen. This really is a non issue.

Prophets (not all of them) have given new scripture and explained old scripture. You are just figuring this out?

[Damien the Leper]

The work of restoration is unfolding. It is not a one time event.

There is still much to be revealed and restored.

See! This is why God and I are going to fight in the next life whether I'm in heaven or in the pit. It doesn't matter. This whole obsession He's got with cliffhangers is really annoying.

[MormonMason]

So without any contact with the original ancient manuscripts, he explained and harmonised scripture into something that agrees more with his doctrine. How fantastic, wouldn't you think that the Holy Ghost would have protected this work and kept it in the True church so that its retranslation could continue to its completion. Then we would all be able to be better instructed by it as a direct translation from God wouldn't we, but maybe the HG didn't think of that

No, for the most part his doctrine was shaped by the translation. A number of Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants came as a result of working with the translation and not the other way around.

[MormonMason]

was theKJV not translated into other languages?

Actually, I am not sure you intended to word this question this way but even so the answer is yes. Several foreign language translations are translations of the KJV rather than direct translations from Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic original-language texts. Further still, the KJV itself is a revision of earlier translations rather than a new, direct translation from the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts of their day. Most people aren't aware of that.

Also can a translation be a translation without the original texts.

If one goes by the definition of 'translation' that was more expansive and had a wider ranges of meaning in Joseph Smith's day, the answer to that question is a yes answer.

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? 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?

Well, Joseph Smith (and all those around him) believed that he was consulting the Lord and getting help from the Holy Ghost in most all instances. A number of new Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants came as a result, many of which clarified a number of things found in the Bible. Having experienced the gift of translation for a brief time many years ago, I can attest that it works and that it is real. I had it confirmed years later when I came across the ancient text I had translated without ever having had contact therewith.

[Wanderer7]

Really, can't wait, but hope it is more reliable than the Book of Abraham farce, which without a doubt showed JS to be the fake that he was.

Believe it or not, regardless of what scholars have said about the Book of Abraham (which, if you will really look into it is anything but conclusive), both the Book of Abraham and the JST of the first few chapters of Genesis contain things in them that have been rediscovered in extra biblical texts that have come forth AFTER Joseph Smith. The similarities are quite remarkable, including specific names.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-13?lang=eng

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Evidence_for_antiquity

[MormonMason]

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith was not the only prophet who expanded and edited the previous words of other prophets, or even their own. Joseph Smith was preceded by other sacred writers who did the very same thing. Yet, it is OK for them to do it but not for him. Sounds more like a double standard to me.

[rodheadlee]

Really, can't wait, but hope it is more reliable than the Book of Abraham farce, which without a doubt showed JS to be the fake that he was.

Have you read the Book of Abraham? Did you invite the Holy Spirit to your reading to bear witness to the truth?

[Five Solas]

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.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd have to conclude the LDS Church actually derives benefit from having a 400+ year old translation full of archaic prose not easily understood by the modern reader.

I'll share an example from back in the day. YSA Gospel Doctrine class, the story of the widow's mite, from Mark 12:42-44. The bishop's wife, in attendance, picked up on the KJV's rendering in 44--"she of her want did cast in all that she had." And she shared with the class that this is a wonderful example of "free agency" and how much it means to God when we give out of our own desire and choice. The widow gave because she wanted to. Free agency was the lesson Christ was teaching his disciples. Confusion over archaic usage of the word "want" affirmed an important LDS doctrine.

Being the unworthy guy at the back of the room with a copy of the Precise Parallel New Testament, and having actually read several English translations of the New Testament, I was blessed to know better (although it didn't feel like much of a blessing at the time). And I actually tried to correct the situation, explaining that in the context "want" simply meant "poverty" (as ESV, NIV, etc. make clear) and that the passage shouldn't be construed as an argument for free will or agency.

Needless to say, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm in the room for my correction or my "alternative" bibles. ("Which one is the correct one, Erik?"). So I find it hard to believe the LDS Church will ever give up their KJV.

Love to be wrong, of course.

--Erik

[rodheadlee]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd have to conclude the LDS Church actually derives benefit from having a 400+ year old translation full of archaic prose not easily understood by the modern reader.

I'll share an example from back in the day. YSA Gospel Doctrine class, the story of the widow's mite, from Mark 12:42-44. The bishop's wife, in attendance, picked up on the KJV's rendering in 44--"she of her want did cast in all that she had." And she shared with the class that this is a wonderful example of "free agency" and how much it means to God when we give out of our own desire and choice. The widow gave because she wanted to. Free agency was the lesson Christ was teaching his disciples. Confusion over archaic usage of the word "want" affirmed an important LDS doctrine.

Being the unworthy guy at the back of the room with a copy of the Precise Parallel New Testament, and having actually read several English translations of the New Testament, I was blessed to know better (although it didn't feel like much of a blessing at the time). And I actually tried to correct the situation, explaining that in the context "want" simply meant "poverty" (as ESV, NIV, etc. make clear) and that the passage shouldn't be construed as an argument for free will or agency.

Needless to say, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm in the room for my correction or my "alternative" bibles. ("Which one is the correct one, Erik?"). So I find it hard to believe the LDS Church will ever give up their KJV.

Love to be wrong, of course.

--Erik

Um, the point was the same, even if the translation wasn't. The widow in poverty freely gave her last bit.

Edited February 25, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

Oops didn't read the thread right changed mind!

Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Five Solas]

Um, the point was the same, even if the translation wasn't. The widow in poverty freely gave her last bit.

Nope. You'll find a lot in the New Testament about free grace. But free agency as LDS would have it? Not so much. Feel "free" to demonstrate otherwise.

;0)

[Pahoran]

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?

Tell us, sayvedbahgrayce, do you have any original thoughts on any subject, or are you just going to keep throwing out these shopworn anti-Mormon chestnuts?

Regards,

Pahoran

[rodheadlee]

Nope. You'll find a lot in the New Testament about free grace. But free agency as LDS would have it? Not so much. Feel "free" to demonstrate otherwise.

;0)

Nobody forced the widow to give all that she had. She gave it all of her own choice. She didn't just give a tithe or a tenth.

Luke 21:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

[rodheadlee]

Nope. You'll find a lot in the New Testament about free grace. But free agency as LDS would have it? Not so much.

;0)

Why constrict myself to one set of scriptures? I would feel hemmed in, boxed in, strangled, not being able to use the full set of LDS Scriptures.

[Five Solas]

Why constrict myself to one set of scriptures? I would feel hemmed in, boxed in, strangled, not being able to use the full set of LDS Scriptures.

not to mention you can't make your argument...

;0)