Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Niv Bible

HappyJackWagon

By HappyJackWagon
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

HappyJackWagon Grand Master

HappyJackWagon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

My understanding is there are two reasons for that:

1. The JST went through the hands of the early RLDS leaders (and the Smith family) and there is no guarantee that the text survived unaltered.

2. We already have a hard time convincing investigators that the other 3 standard works are from God.  If we trade in the original Bible for the JST "translation" we will have nothing left in common.

 

That makes sense. Thanks.

saemo Mentor

saemo

Posted
Posted

 

 

Other than JST of Matthew, the JST bible is not on LDS.org and Ezekial is not included in the LDS tools ap where much of the new testament is found. Therefore, without buying it, the church doesn't seem all that interested in making it available for use. It does seem a little strange that the JST wouldn't be the official version of the bible we use.

Yes, but the NIV is not on LDS.org either. I was wondering more, when looking for clarification of a Bible passage, why not turn to the JST?

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted

I think most people feel like scripture should say what God wants it to say and not what we want it to say.

So that's why changing it to fit us is seen as bad.

 

While I agree with the concept of what you are saying, history doesn't support that changing the text to fit us is bad.  I am not necessarily saying that I am in support of removing the thee's and thou's.  It feels more sacred and reverent to me that way, but that is just a personal and subjective preference. 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

1
HappyJackWagon Grand Master

HappyJackWagon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Yes, but the NIV is not on LDS.org either. I was wondering more, when looking for clarification of a Bible passage, why not turn to the JST?

 

Because I downloaded it for free on my phone :)

1
bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted

While I agree with the concept of what you are saying, history doesn't support that changing the text to fit us is bad.  I am not necessarily saying that I am in support of removing the thee's and thou's.  It feels more sacred and reverent to me that way, but that is just a personal and subjective preference. 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

 

If we change it to say what we want it to say at the expense of what God wants it to say, then hopefully we can agree that that is problematic.

 

And that's what I was referring to.

1
mnn727 Grand Master

mnn727

Posted
Posted (edited)

If we change it to say what we want it to say at the expense of what God wants it to say, then hopefully we can agree that that is problematic.

 

And that's what I was referring to.

God didn't speak English, English didn't exist when the Bible was written: Men wrote the Bible, Men translated the Bible. There is nothing sacred about Old English, its just old not to mention: obsolete.

 

You want to get closer to what God meant then we should all read only in Greek, Hebrew and Aramic.

Edited by mnn727
bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted

God didn't speak English, English didn't exist when the Bible was written: Men wrote the Bible, Men translated the Bible. There is nothing sacred about Old English, its just old not to mention: obsolete.

You want to get closer to what God meant then we should all read only in Greek, Hebrew and Aramic.

This is all true but has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. :)
1
rlds_coc_lds Apprentice

rlds_coc_lds

Posted
Posted (edited)

One thing that concerns me and I find interesting that most people seem to not think about in the Church is the Inspired Version as revised by Joseph Smith. I know there is a copyright that is held by the Community of Christ (which uses any version of the bible that they want but I believe often uses one of the modern translations during service). I have wondered how Heavenly Father would let the "one true church" lose the ability to use the Inspired Version of the Bible.

Edited by rlds_coc_lds
saemo Mentor

saemo

Posted
Posted (edited)

It looks like you have to pay a monthly fee to get access to those.

I used Gospelink for about two years, around 2005/6. It has a lot of LDS publications that I wanted access to for reference and personal study. The monthly fee then, was a steal. Just looking up oft quoted material in context was worth it to me. Studying claims of various individuals and organizations for myself, using LDS publications. New material is continually added and I imagine by now their online library has become even better than it was when I was using it.

I never read the JST though.

Edited by saemo
Alan Veteran

Alan

Posted
Posted

Just because CoC owns the copyright doesn't mean the LDS church can't pay to use it, right? So they have access if they want it. Apparently it's not that important to them.

 

I think the copyright has expired.

bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted

Just because CoC owns the copyright doesn't mean the LDS church can't pay to use it, right? So they have access if they want it. Apparently it's not that important to them.

 

This is part of what the church has published about the JST on lds.org

 

"It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible.

When the Prophet was killed in 1844, his widow, Emma, retained the manuscripts of the translation and subsequently passed them on to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1866. 2 The Reorganized Church published the corrections in 1867 under the title Holy Scriptures—Inspired Version. It has since been published by them in several editions and many printings.

Through the courtesy of the Reorganized Church I have closely examined the original manuscripts and compared them with the printed editions of the Inspired Version and have concluded that the printed work accurately represents the information on the manuscripts.

There are a few passages in which the printed Inspired Version fails to present the corrections found in the Prophet’s manuscripts, but these are passages of minor importance and are relatively insignificant. This is not to imply that the Reorganized Church has substituted its own revisions in place of the Prophet’s, but rather, in these instances, the wording of the King James Version has been retained.

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."

 

 

Kenngo1969 Grand Master

Kenngo1969

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think part of it is that the RLDS holds (or held, I have no idea when or how things enter the public domain) the copyright for most if the jst.

This comes with the usual caveat: IANAL. ;)  It depends on the copyright law in effect when the work was created.  I'm pretty well versed on copyright law since about 1976, somewhat well versed on copyright law between about 1909 and 1976, and not at all well versed on copyright law prior to that or from the 1830s and '40s, when the JST came into being. :huh::unknw:

 

;)

 

P.S.: Where is the material you quoted from, Bluebell.  Got a link?

Edited by Kenngo1969
bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted

This comes with the usual caveat: IANAL. ;) It depends on the copyright law in effect when the work was created. I'm pretty well versed on copyright law since about 1976, somewhat well versed on copyright law between about 1909 and 1976, and not at all well versed on copyright law prior to that or from the 1830s and '40s, when the JST came into being. :huh::unknw:

;)

P.S.: Where is the material you quoted from, Bluebell. Got a link?

Cal's link is where I got it. Thanks Cal.
HappyJackWagon Grand Master

HappyJackWagon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

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."

Thanks for sharing the info Bluebell.

 

I'm curious why these two reasons are justifiable in not accepting the translation as "authoritative".

 

Does someone else owning the copyright make it less than authoritative?

Being incomplete seems more reasonable but not fully. If JS completed the old testament but not the new, should we discard his version of the old?

 

Thought of another way, Joseph's translation of the papyrus was incomplete yet the church still accepts the Book of Abraham. We don't have the book of Joseph which is said to also be on the papyrus so does that make it incomplete?

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1977/04/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

Q&A: Questions and Answers

Answers are for help and perspective, not as pronouncements of Church doctrine

“Why don’t we use the Inspired Version of the Bible in the Church? Would it be helpful to me to read it?”

Answer/Brother Robert J. Matthews

In answer to the first question, I would say that to some extent we do use Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible (or, as he called it, the New Translation). For example, the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract from the Prophet’s translation of the book of Genesis. Also Joseph Smith 1 in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract of the new translation of Matthew, chapter 24. So anytime we use these materials in the Pearl of Great Price, we are using the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible.

Or to speak in greater detail, whenever we use quotations from the Book of Moses, such as “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39), or refer to the book of remembrance as kept by Adam and his family (Moses 6:46), or speak of Adam having a language that was pure and undefiled (Moses 6:5–6), or talk of Cain as Master Mahan (Moses 5:31), or recognize the origin of animal sacrifice (Moses 5:5–8), or discuss the details of Enoch’s great ministry, and of Enoch and the Lord weeping for the waywardness of mankind (Moses 7:28–41), we are actually using Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. However, the two excerpts that are in the Pearl of Great Price represent only a fraction of the thousands of corrections, revisions, and additions made by the Prophet Joseph Smith in translating the Bible.

Perhaps the principal reason why the Church has not published or officially adopted the new translation is that the Prophet Joseph Smith was unable to attend to an authorized publication of it before his death. The Church records show that the Prophet wanted to publish the translation and was in the process of preparing the manuscript for that purpose at the time of his death but was hindered by persecution and lack of finances. As recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord indicated that He wished to have it published. (See D&C 124:89.) It is also very probable that the Prophet would have made some additional corrections had he lived longer.

However, at the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the manuscripts and documents pertaining to the translation were retained by Emma Smith, the Prophet’s widow, who would not give them to the Quorum of the Twelve although Elder Willard Richards, apparently acting on behalf of President Young, requested the new translation of her. Consequently, when the Church moved to the Salt Lake Valley, it did so without the new translation of the Bible.

Subsequently, the Reorganized church (RLDS) was organized in Illinois, and in 1866 Sister Emma Smith gave the manuscripts into the custody of that church. In 1867 the RLDS published the first edition of the translation and obtained a copyright for it. The RLDS church still has the original manuscripts and the copyright and is therefore the sole publisher.

Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had neither the original manuscripts nor the copyright, it would have been quite difficult, if not impossible, for the Church to publish the translation, even if it had wanted to. In Nauvoo in 1845, Dr. John M. Bernhisel made a partial copy from the original, and the Church has this in its offices in Salt Lake City, but it contains less than half of the corrections and is not suitable for publication.

Because the translation was published by the RLDS church, some questions have existed as to whether it had been published accurately. However, research in the past few years with the original manuscripts has indicated that the Inspired Version of the Bible, published by the RLDS church, is an accurate representation of the sense of the original manuscripts prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes. Furthermore, it seems to be increasing in use and acceptance in our church today. An official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974, contained these words:

“The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. …

“When the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price offer information relative to biblical interpretation, these should be given preference in writing and teaching. But when these sources of latter-day revelation do not provide significant information which is available in the Inspired Version, then this version may be used.”

These expressions from the editorial certainly permit members of the Church to use the translation in writing and in personal study.

In answer to the second question as to the help that would be obtained from the Inspired Version of the Bible, the following items are of some significance: (1) The Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation bears a much stronger testimony of the divinity and the mission of Jesus Christ than does the King James Version and places the ancient patriarchs of the Old Testament in a clear gospel setting. (2) It reveals much interesting information otherwise unobtainable about Adam, Eve, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. (3) It clarifies many passages from the writings of Isaiah and the Psalms. (4) It enlivens many events in the mortal ministry of Jesus and explains many of his parables. (5) It reveals a much closer relationship of Jesus and the prophets than is found in any other Bible. (6) It unfolds the background and true meaning of many of Paul’s statements, especially concerning his comments about women and marriage. (7) It enlarges upon and clarifies many items dealing with the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of the devil, the priesthood, premortal existence, the innocence of children, the resurrection, and the plan of salvation—all in a Bible setting. (8) And last, but certainly not least, the translation gives the reader a feeling for the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith and stands as one of the strongest tangible evidences of his divine mission. The Prophet himself referred to the translation as “a branch of his calling.” (History of the Church, 1:238.)

Edited by calmoriah
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

I think that the use of the KJV has in the past allowed for a shared language so to speak with other Christians and such commonalities help increase understanding which leads often to increased acceptance. The first IMO is sufficient reasoning to use the KJV in the past, the second means it may make it easier for investigators to consider our faith and increase the numbers of those who accept the challenge to read our other scriptures. If this is so, another sufficient reason to keep use of the KJV.

As other Christians move away from use of the KJV, they most likely still hold on to the idea that it is true scripture, which would be a hurdle for the Inspired Version. Discussing a different interpretation of a passage and justifying that is significantly different than having to first justify the use of a revision, convincing first that it is inspired. By incorporating what is seen as most useful from the JST as a study aid rather than our main text, I think we have the best of both worlds.

I would like to know though about why the changes that were left out were treated that way. I would not be surprised to see more of the JST added next time a major overhaul is done or the complete text put up somewhere on lds.org or possibly on the Joseph Smith Papers site (if it hasn't been already).

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...