stemelbow Posted May 15, 2018 Posted May 15, 2018 14 hours ago, Exiled said: If someone hasn't answered this already, Clarke's commentary is verse based commentary. So, I don't think it would be difficult for one to have the two side by side to compare. https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1810_clarke_commentary.html It's online in a couple of places. If someone else wants to go through it and make the comparison, I'd say, do it. I've looked a couple of times since first reading that summary on BYU's website. but I dont' have the time nor inclination to do much more than accept what Wilson and Wayment have said so far.
RevTestament Posted May 15, 2018 Posted May 15, 2018 On 1/18/2018 at 8:24 AM, FormerLDS said: Well, Joseph Smith did claim this was an "inspired" translation after all... Maybe you would be so kind to point out where he did. In D&C it is referred to as "the translation of my scriptures." See D&C 10, 73, 94. The name Inspired Version was applied by the RLDS church. Parts of Moses were published before his death so we know he had written it, as well as a few other excerpts of the JST, but it appears that the work significantly slowed from that point. I think the JST Matt 24-25 material is uniquely from inspiration, and essentially represents a merger of Matt 25 with Luke so as to make a coherent whole. Other than those I wouldn't be too surprised if most of the minor word and phrase changes were inspired by works such as Clarke's as being a better "translation" than the KJV. If the Lord had talked JS through the whole process, it certainly wouldn't have taken as many years as it did. It seems to me the major material the Lord wanted was the Book of Moses and the JST Matthew. Other than that, material such as the Johannine Comma was left as apparently harmless or inconsequential. I would add that I don't feel too inspired by all of JS' changes in the JST, but I do find it useful as a study guide. I do apparently agree with him that the KJV was not a perfect translation by any means, and have myself many things I think should be changed in it. First and foremost is that it tends to hide the names and titles of the Lord ie YHWH which I feel are important when trying to understand His nature. After all He has these titles and names for a reason - I believe the KJV serves to obscure those reasons.
Guest Posted May 15, 2018 Posted May 15, 2018 On January 18, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Gray said: I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding! Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians. Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation? Eta: forgot the link! http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 I would hope Joseph sought knowledge from any source in accordance with the "13th Article of Faith", if not I should be very disappointed. Truth is truth, the source matters not. Sadly others things that were not true made their way into the early Church, that had to be done away by future Prophets, Apostles and Presidents.
Recommended Posts