When was the Bible validated by God?

[JLH]

The church's official stand on the use of the JST is this:

"The Inspired Version {as it is called by its publishers} does not supplant the King James Version as the officiatl church version of the Bible, but the expalanations and changes made by teh Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages.

"Part of the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith were finally approved before his death; and some of these have been cited in current church instructional materials or may be cited in future church instructional materials.

"Accordingly, these cited portions of the Inspired Version may be used by church writersa nad teachers, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, in connection with the Biblical interpretations, applying always the divine injunction that 'whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom.'" (D&C 91:5)

"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." (Editorial, Church News, 7 Dec. 1974, p. 16.)

Simply, fyi:

According to the D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802, Joseph Smith completed a translation of the Bible. Those sources and Andrew Jensen's LDS Church Chronology show that the New Testament was finished February 2, 1833, and the Old Testament on July 2, 1833. In a revelation given on January 10, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are commanded to "continue the work of translation until it is finished" (D. & C. 73:4).

[emaughan]

I just don't understand the easiness with which some people treat others like dirt.

Oh I'm sure I would fit that profile now and then, but I try to resist the temptation when some present such juicy targets.

[Guest johnny_cat]

According to the D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802, Joseph Smith completed a translation of the Bible. Those sources and Andrew Jensen's LDS Church Chronology show that the New Testament was finished February 2, 1833, and the Old Testament on July 2, 1833. In a revelation given on January 10, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are commanded to "continue the work of translation until it is finished" (D. & C. 73:4).

Note that the quote given by simply_d says that portions were approved. That's different than saying it wasn't finished.

[JLH]

I just don't understand the easiness with which some people treat others like dirt.

Oh I'm sure I would fit that profile now and then, but I try to resist the temptation when some present such juicy targets.

Come on emaughan. Is that the best apology you can come up with?

Just say it.

[JLH]

According to the D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802, Joseph Smith completed a translation of the Bible. Those sources and Andrew Jensen's LDS Church Chronology show that the New Testament was finished February 2, 1833, and the Old Testament on July 2, 1833. In a revelation given on January 10, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are commanded to "continue the work of translation until it is finished" (D. & C. 73:4).

Note that the quote given by simply_d says that portions were approved. That's different than saying it wasn't finished.

johnny,

That's not the point here.

The point is that lds posters have said it was never completed but the history of the church says something different.

Was it, or was it not completed. Records contemporaneous to Smith seem to indicate he completed the translation as ordered by revelation. Hense, why is it not the official translation in it's "entirety" that the lds church would use?

Copyright issues have nothing to do with it, right?

[JLH]

Sorry guys, gotta run.

Time for the three "B"s now:

Beer,

Brat,

and,

Bobby Knight.

[emaughan]

Come on emaughan. Is that the best apology you can come up with?

Just say it.

Even my wife has problems with digging appologies out of me - luckly I'm never wrong and in need of appologies.

Del - I hope your in bed now considering how late it is over there. If you want to read up on the JST, FAIR has some good links on the subject.

[Guest johnny_cat]

The point is that lds posters have said it was never completed but the history of the church says something different.

Was it, or was it not completed. Records contemporaneous to Smith seem to indicate he completed the translation as ordered by revelation. Hense, why is it not the official translation in it's "entirety" that the lds church would use?

Copyright issues have nothing to do with it, right?

Here's Robert Matthews' take on the completion:

There has been an assumption that the JST was deliberately not published because it was grossly unfinished. That assumption is not based on all of the facts. The epistles of the First Presidency and of the Twelve as published in the History of the Church and the Times and Seasons, some of which are cited in this article, lead to the unmistakable conclusion that the intention was to publish. The major reason for failure to publish appears to have been an inadequate response from the Saints in providing temporal assistance. The basic conclusion seems to be that the work of translation was acceptable as far as the Lord required it of the Prophet at that time, but the manuscript was not fully prepared for the press.

Perhaps one reason for the feeling about the

[emaughan]

JST has not been canonized.

Actually don't forget the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price - this is considered part of the JST and it is canon.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Actually don't forget the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price - this is considered part of the JST and it is canon.

Of course. I meant that, as a whole, it has not been canonized.

[simply_disappear]

Simply, fyi:

According to the D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802, Joseph Smith completed a translation of the Bible. Those sources and Andrew Jensen's LDS Church Chronology show that the New Testament was finished February 2, 1833, and the Old Testament on July 2, 1833. In a revelation given on January 10, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are commanded to "continue the work of translation until it is finished" (D. & C. 73:4).

bbbbbut...........I didn't post my information to prove anything other than how we are to use the JST. We are to use it to clarify where it will. If it doesn't then we remain looking towards the KJV as is.

In answer to your question as to why the LDS church hasn't PUBLISHED the work per se----I'd venture here to note that Emma Smith had charge of the entirety of the documents that Joseph continued to edit though he had worked his way through the entire Bible. Thus, the RLDS church had possession of it ---- which they did publish and they use, to my knowledge anyhow...... Here's where I venture----I think it may be a caution on the part of the LDS church to keep from tainting the work by keeping it unpublished yet usable so far as what we have in our possession.

Any corrections on my post is appreciated.

[dacook]

Am I the only one who's noticed that JLH has been successfull in changing the subject?

I've been patiently waiting for an EC or Catholic or somebody to answer Del's original very good question.

After 5 pages I'm still waiting....

[scott blaze]

If the JST is unfinished, why hasn't a prophet sine JS issued a correct version. I expect an answer such as 'we have other scriptures that give us the doctrine that we need'. the last time i read the BOM didn't have much LDS doctrine, in fact it contradicts polygamy.

Maybe the JST was nothing more than his opinion. How many times have we heard that excuse on this board?

The Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths and ramblings of ancient desert nomads. To claim that the Bible is the word of God is an unprovable and absurd notion. The so-called miracles are ridiculous to any sensible and unemotional person. Some people are so needy that they will grasp ahold of any myth, just so they can turn the lights out when they go to bed and not be afraid of the dark.

[King Pagan]

Am I the only one who's noticed that JLH has been successfull in changing the subject?

I've been patiently waiting for an EC or Catholic or somebody to answer Del's original very good question.

After 5 pages I'm still waiting....

No, you're not the only one who has noticed. We all know why it was done. The bible of JLH ministries is no more and no less valid than any other and JLH will avoid Del March's original question at all costs, even to the extent of devolving into the infantile 'IS TOO! IS NOT!' if necessary. Methinks JLH senses quicksand!

[emaughan]

If the JST is unfinished, why hasn't a prophet sine JS issued a correct version. I expect an answer such as 'we have other scriptures that give us the doctrine that we need'.

Nope - that's not the answer I would give.

the last time i read the BOM didn't have much LDS doctrine, in fact it contradicts polygamy.

That's an interesting non-sequiter - and no Scott the BoM does not contradict polygamy. Take it to the correct thread if you wish to continue this one.

[Dear Mee]

NEVER!! Now i know this is so/too easy for LDS to refute--with their claims; the RCs with their claims; Jehovah Witness with their claims; Evangelicals and every other Judeo-Christian sect with their claims/rationalizations/apologetics/etc. It hardly seems a sensible question. Why ask it? I wonder...

Is there so much insecurity within the LDS rank and file that they require constant reassurance--from each other--that they are right and the "Only True Church" just to function in the reality of dynamics? If so, and it appears to be--for some--you're selling yourselves short. And at the same time the essence of Jesus' messages, which go far beyond religious interpretaion, are diluted into status-quo pablum (baby food). IMHO.

I recall the scene in "A Few Good Men" where the Jack Nicolson character, in Jack's inimitable way, stabs his finger towards Tom Cruise's character, and screams, "YOU can't handle the truth!" A classic line. I wonder...truth or confirmation?

Truth an' Courage--with love, of course.

[Guest johnny_cat]

The Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths and ramblings of ancient desert nomads. To claim that the Bible is the word of God is an unprovable and absurd notion. The so-called miracles are ridiculous to any sensible and unemotional person. Some people are so needy that they will grasp ahold of any myth, just so they can turn the lights out when they go to bed and not be afraid of the dark.

I think I'd rather be one of the needy, ridiculous people if being "sensible and unemotional" means making fun of people.

[Del March]

NEVER!!

I suppose you're answering to my original question, right?

Now i know this is so/too easy for LDS to refute--with their claims;  the RCs with their claims; Jehovah Witness with their claims; Evangelicals and every other Judeo-Christian sect with their claims/rationalizations/apologetics/etc.

Actually, this is exactly what I am asking for: refutation based on people's claims. As far as I know, the only claim anyone has except the LDS and their associates, is tradition of men. I'm wondering if any of them has some God-based claim.

It hardly seems a sensible question. Why ask it? I wonder...

Because we LDS claim to base our theology on direct revelation from God, and our critics oppose us with what seems to me to be nothing more than a tradition of men. Those two things are nowhere on the same level. If their Bible-only criterion is based strictly on the tradition of men, and on no kind of divine revelation, then it has no value when faced with a claim of divine revelation and approval. God cannot be bound by the traditions of men.

Is there so much insecurity within the LDS rank and file that they require constant reassurance--from each other--that they are right and the "Only True Church" just to function in the reality of dynamics?

Absolutely not. In fact, if I see insecurity anywhere, it's in the ranks of our critics. They are the ones who have to stick to an unscriptural criterion in order to deny that God is speaking to a prophet again.

I recall the scene in "A Few Good Men" where the Jack Nicolson character, in Jack's inimitable way, stabs his finger towards Tom Cruise's character, and screams, "YOU can't handle the truth!" A classic line. I wonder...truth or confirmation?

Eeek! I have a personal bad experience with that line. But that's none of your fault, so nevermind

It seems to me that if anyone here is unable to handle the truth, it is those who can't face the fact that God is speaking to a prophet again, that He requires faith in the face of the illogical, and that the doctrine of "easy grace and no works" (over-simplification, nobody jumps on me, please) isn't true.

Del

[Dear Mee]

DEL, with all due respect, you present no evidence what-so-ever except of the same dimensions and standards as those that all others submit--"It's in the Book!"

I certainly don't mean to offend, but is it not simply here-say, or more specifically in this case, your-say or Mormon-say?

  Actually, this is exactly what I am asking for: refutation based on people's claims. As far as I know, the only claim anyone has except the LDS and their associates, is tradition of men. I'm wondering if any of them has some God-based claim.

I respectfully suggest we accept each other's opinion/proclaimation/testamony and belief to be of equal value, and purpose, to their resective owners. Mine no better, or worse, than yours and of course yours no better, or worse, than mine. Do you not see we are dealing with beliefs? They are beyond substantiation, except as one might, for what ever reason, choose to be convinced otherwise.

Del, i once, was where you are now. Whether you will ever be where i now am? That remains to be seen. And, i certainly don't expect that imminently. It takes a very great leap of faith!

Because we LDS claim to base our theology on direct revelation from God, and our critics oppose us with what seems to me to be nothing more than a tradition of men. Those two things are nowhere on the same level. If their Bible-only criterion is based strictly on the tradition of men, and on no kind of divine revelation, then it has no value when faced with a claim of divine revelation and approval. God cannot be bound by the traditions of men.

Del, you are absolutely correct: "...LDS claim to base our theology on direct revelation..." It is simply an "LDS claim" to be believed or not. "...and allow all other men the same priviledge..." The Articles of Faith are simply 13 Items of Belief that base LDS faith in varying degrees of individual strength.

Another point you make well, "God cannot be bound by the traditions of men" With that thought in mind, I'm not sure if you get my full meaning to your response, by my use of the word, "Never!" I apply "NEVER" across the board to all of the Judeo-Christian instititutions proclaiming to represent God.

IMVHO, there is/was only one person who even comes close to that state of being. That One is Jesus of Nazareth! All else seem but feeble attempts to gain glory by vain repetions of His name. At the same time denying the faith to follow him beyond the comforts of cushioned pews and air-conditioned places of ritual.

It seems to me that if anyone here is unable to handle the truth, it is those who can't face the fact that God is speaking to a prophet again, that He requires faith in the face of the illogical, and that the doctrine of "easy grace and no works" (over-simplification, nobody jumps on me, please) isn't true.

Del, there is no fact to face. There is only the LDS claim that you are most welcome to have amongst yourselves. And certainly even to share with others. It's the supreme exclusivity that some LDS set-up that is really self defeating. Such as with statements like, "easy grace and no works." (Your caveat even suggests you find it discomforting to others--why say it?)

I think we will really serve a higher purpose when we gather around what we have in common and set aside our belief differences. They matter not, only in the minds of humans. Trust Mee on this one, God accepts all acts of charity as approved tender at the "gate".

(1 Cor. 13:1- "Though i speak with the tongues of angels...and have the gift of prophecy...and understand all mysteries...and have knowledge and faith ... without charity i am nothing..." That's in the Book.

[Del March]

DEL, with all due respect, you present no evidence what-so-ever except of the same dimensions and standards as those that all others submit--"It's in the Book!"

Actually, no.

We have prophets who testify that the Bible is the Word of God, on top of the BoM and the D&C (this last book being a compilation of modern revelations anyway).

The Bible-only people don't even have a scripture to support their claim that the Bible is the Word of God, since the Bible does NOT claim itself to be the Word of God (how could it?) All they have is their own tradition, not supported by scripture or revelation.

So no, we are NOT AT ALL in the same league here.

I respectfully suggest we accept each other's opinion/proclaimation/testamony and belief to be of equal value, and purpose, to their resective owners.

I have no problem doing that. However, every time we LDS present something that is not Biblical-only, our critics dismiss it with a "it's not in the Bible". How accepting is that?

Do you not see we are dealing with beliefs? They are beyond substantiation, except as one might, for what ever reason, choose to be convinced otherwise.

I'm not sure many of our critics would agree with you on that one.

Del, i once, was where you are now. Whether you will ever be where i now am? That remains to be seen. And, i certainly don't expect that imminently. It takes a very great leap of faith!

Why should I ever be where you are??

Del, you are absolutely correct: "...LDS claim to base our theology on direct revelation..." It is simply an "LDS claim" to be believed or not. "...and allow all other men the same priviledge..." The Articles of Faith are simply 13 Items of Belief that base LDS faith in varying degrees of individual strength.

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that LDS claim to base their theology on God Himself, through the revelations He gives prophets. While our critics claim to base their theologies on an old book compiled by men who didn't claim to have received God's guidance while doing so. Once again, we're not in the same league. And yet somehow, our critics keep thinking that we are the ones who have no strong basis. When comparing between God Himself and the Bible, they conclude that the Bible is a stronger basis. I wonder how they come to that conclusion

Another point you make well, "God cannot be bound by the traditions of men" With that thought in mind, I'm not sure if you get my full meaning to your response, by my use of the word, "Never!" I apply "NEVER" across the board to all of the Judeo-Christian instititutions proclaiming to represent God.

And why do you apply it accross the board? Just because you think it is appropriate?

IMVHO, there is/was only one person who even comes close to that state of being. That One is Jesus of Nazareth! All else seem but feeble attempts to gain glory by vain repetions of His name. At the same time denying the faith to follow him beyond the comforts of cushioned pews and air-conditioned places of ritual.

I'm not sure what you're talking about...

And just FYI, my home branch has never had cushioned pews or air-conditioning. There was a time when we didn't even have a place to call our own to meet in. And there was also a time when we didn't even have a branch. And yet we always kept following the instructions of God, as much as was possible for us.

I think we will really serve a higher purpose when we gather around what we have in common and set aside our belief differences. They matter not, only in the minds of humans. Trust Mee on this one, God accepts all acts of charity as approved tender at the "gate".

Re-read what most of our critics say: they repeat ad nauseam that LDS and "true" Christians have NOTHING in common.

They also keep repeating that no amount of personal righteousness matters in the eyes of God, that only belief in Christ matters.

Oh, and anyway, I can't have charity as long as I don't believe in the "right" Jesus, because only He can give me charity, after I believe in Him.

So I'm afraid our belief differences DO matter. At least to our critics.

(1 Cor. 13:1- "Though i speak with the tongues of angels...and have the gift of prophecy...and understand all mysteries...and have knowledge and faith ... without charity i am nothing..." That's in the Book.

And yet, on another thread, someone is explaining that without the correct understanding of Jesus, we can't be saved...

Del

[Avatar4321]

This thread is really interesting and somewhat humorous.

Virtually all of the lds posters are either troubled, arguing or complaining that God did not validate the Bible. Yet, at least I thought, they claim that it is one of their standard works and is therefor the word of God.

You need to read the thread alittle better. We aren't troubled at all. You see God has validated the Bible in modern revelation. But those who reject modern revelation do not have anything from God that validates the Bible since the Bible itself makes no such claim.

[Avatar4321]

In no way is the Bible complete in all amnner of things---God is still speaking and revalation is still coming---but for this dispensation---he will only speak thru his word---which is far greater and bigger and has vast amounts of wisdom and revalation it it that has not be unlock to us as of yet---

Where the heck do you get this idea? God gives revelation but doesnt reveal scriptures. thats just kinda contradictory.

Where do you get the idea that God will speak only through the Bible in this dispensation?

[Zakuska]

If God "dictated" the Bible as most Christians want us to beleive. Then If God spoke to say.... o... the pope... And he wrote it down. How would what he wrote down be any less "God breathed" than anything writtien in the bible?

[emaughan]

Where do you get the idea that God will speak only through the Bible in this dispensation?

Certainly not from the bible.

[dacook]

I'm wondering: when did God validate the Bible? When did He say that:

1. The Bible is accurate? ie: that the doctrines it contains are true to the teachings of His Son and His apostles.

2. The Bible is complete? ie: that it contains all the doctrines and covenants necessary for men's salvation as taught by His Son and His apostles

3. The Bible is definitive? ie: that He would never reveal anything new after that.

Did God ever validate the Bible? If yes, how did He do it? I suspect it must have been through a man/some men? Did this person/those people hold the correct authority to talk for God, ie: were they prophets?

These are really good questions.

I'm still waiting for a really good answer....