JST: Joseph Smith changing the words of this book (Revelation)

[Ironhold]

Wow! That's a real scholarly Response - Just Say repeat Irrelevant 5 Times!

Yeah - that got me, too.

No mention of why this was even supposed to be "irrelevant".

 

[ChetSinger]

So if there is no continuing revelation, then God cannot speak today.
We know His Word is scripture, ahhh, how can He be the same yesterday today and forever without speaking? ?
Has He spoken to you? (that means anyone)

Good question. God continues to speak through the Holy Spirit, who is our counselor and comforter.

 

[ChetSinger]

How many translations of the many that are out today do orthodox approve of?
The living bible and others change lots of words.
Having at least four that I use, all helpful in many ways.

My personal favorites are the ESV and NET. I like the ESV for daily reading and the NET for its abundance of footnotes.

 

[drstevej]

How many translations of the many that are out today do orthodox approve of?
The living bible and others change lots of words.
Having at least four that I use, all helpful in many ways.

Nora the issue is not translation of the manuscripts it is changing the text with ZERO manuscript support and claiming it restores lost truths.

 

[Ironhold]

Nora the issue is not translation of the manuscripts it is changing the text with ZERO manuscript support and claiming it restores lost truths.

Nice dodge.

 

[Ran77]

Nora the issue is not translation of the manuscripts it is changing the text with ZERO manuscript support and claiming it restores lost truths.

In other words, just because we are LDS.

 

[drstevej]

In other words, just because we are LDS.

Nope. I explained: "it is changing the text with ZERO manuscript support and claiming it restores lost truths."

 

[RevelationTestament]

What you "believe" is irrelevant without credible, verifiable, historical evidence. That excludes any writings of LDS, including the writings of JS. Peter accepted Paul and his writings, equating it with "other scriptures", i.e. the OT.

Even Paul says not to dump the law or works.

The work of sanctification began when we were born again and it will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Philippians 1:6).
Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Proverbs 21:21
21 He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth life, righteousness, and honour.

Hanging a whole theology on a few words of Paul to the exclusion of Christ's many words on the subject of salvation is dangerous and unscriptural. How about these other words of Paul which show salvation is not by the grace of Christ alone?:
Romans 8:24
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

oops what happened to being saved by grace alone?

Since when are the words of Christ not "credible, verifiable, historical evidence?"
Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matthew 7:21-27 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[Ran77]

Nope. I explained: "it is changing the text with ZERO manuscript support and claiming it restores lost truths."

Which translates into - Just because we are LDS. I got it the first time.

 

[mmksparbud]

Good grief---so what parts of the old testament does he consider as wrong? Like I said--the Dead Sea Scrolls proved they have been passed down correctly. The disciples had the right translation! And the disciples said one wife--only one Immortal God, One Son of God, One High priest, One Holy Spirit!

This is not a matter of interpretation--this is a matter of changing what the bible says regarding God--it says He was from everlasting to everlasting, that there is no other god but Him, and JS comes along and says--he was a man before and there are many gods out there---hmmm---who to believe--Tough choice--but I think I'll stick to the Old Testament instead of the New Delusions of Grander.

 

[Der Alte]

Wow! That's a real scholarly Response - Just Say repeat Irrelevant 5 Times!

Der Alter: "Only if mainline scholars can consult the manuscripts that JS used for his "translation."

Response: Who says JS used any manuscripts? He was a prophet, that could have been inspired as to what different verses could have originally meant, to clarify things in them, to restore meanings. I don't recall in LDS history if he used any manuscripts, anymore than Ezra did, for restoring the Book of Enoch. Traditionally, that's been one of the roles of Prophets, & even Jesus Christ, to restore that which had been lost, corrupted over time, or needed to be "refreshed." (Matt.11:13-14, Luke 1:17; Acts 3:19-21).

Begs the question! You begin with the assumption that JS was a prophet, so anything he said can be excused/explained away as prophecy. How do you know if Enoch did/did not use any manuscripts?

Origen, 185-230-254, suggests that after times of wickedness & apostasy, the Lord would refresh & restore the world back to its former state. The early anti-Christian writer, Celsus, writing about 170-180, must have been aware that some early Christians believed in a restoration, or times of "refreshing." But he rejects the idea, for he wrote: "..."God does not need to amend His work afresh." Origen responded in these word: "But it is not as a man who has imperfectly designed some piece of workmanship, & executed it unskillfully, that God administers correction to the world, in purifying it by a flood or by a conflagration, but in order to prevent the tide of evil from rising to a greater height;... It is, then, always in order to repair what has become faulty that God desires to amend His work afresh,... for He does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him to do in a perverted and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different acts of husbandry upon the soil and its productions, according to the varying seasons of the year, so God administers entire ages of time, as if they were, so to speak, so many individual years, performing during each one of them what is requisite with a reasonable regard to the care of the world; and this, as it is truly understood by God alone, so also is it accomplished by Him." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:528, Origen Against Celsus, Book IV, c. LXIX).

Nowhere in this do I see anyone saying that God's word was faulty and had to be restored, etc.

What might cause [Supposition! DA] the need for things to be restored or refreshed, or clarified, through prophets (Amos 3:7; Eph. 4:10-14; 1 Cor. 12). Cases like what happened with Old Testament manuscripts: The Yahwists are said to have removed from the scriptures, any earlier hints to a polytheistic period in earlier Israel's beliefs systems. And eventually enforced their monotheistic views on the scriptures, by tampering with the texts. [More supposition! DA] This is said to have taken place during the time known as the "Deuteronomic Reform" of B.C. 620-400. (See: Ancient Text & Mormonism, by Eugene Seaich, 1983, preface iii-iv, etc. Also: The Gods of the Egyptians or Studies in Egyptian Mythology, by E.A. Wallis Budge, Vol.2, p.140-2, Methuen & Co., Lon., 1904).

One of the sources for these suppositions is a Mormon text and the other, what relevance does Egyptian mythology have here? Do you have any non-LDS texts documenting the so-called "Deuteronomic Reform?"

Some posts here, have taken cheap shots & jabs at Joseph Smith for alleged womenizing, alleged claims that his intentions to clarify meanings in the Bible was to impress the young ladies. What if JS was guilty of such a thing? What of biblical prophets, & apostles? So, scripture writers, if they should have weakinesses & imperfections, must be rejected. Right? Or is there going to be a double standard set in place by Christians here to try to save the Psalms & most of the Bible? For example, we all know what King David did, ran around naked, fragged one of his soldiers to get at the soldier's girl. David, as also other scripture writers, were poligamous too! But I don't see Christendom tearing out the Psalms, & other scriptures from their Bibles because of these things. Such cheap shots at prophets are like what Atheists & the early anti-Christians did to reject & try to discredit our common faith in the Bible writers' whom, despite their weakiness & imperfections, gave us "the word of God." The Psalms, pre-Babylonian exil, were in a differenet order than after the Babylonian take over of Jerusalem, post-exil, when Jewish leaders & editors did make major changes in their theology, the way they interpreted the Law of Moses, and celebrated the festivals, & changed their concept of the Godhead. The Psalms, pre-exile, were also arranged in a certain order as a temple text too. But post-exile, they got rearranged. Despite this, & other Old Testament writers' weakinesses, David's Psalms, & other books, still remain in most versions of the Bible. (Prof. Stephen D. Ricks & LeGrand L. Baker, Who Shall Ascend Into The Hill of the Lord?, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Ebon Books, 2011).

Another Mormon text. Oh sing me the blues. JS was not David or any other OT prophet. As for David IIRC God punished him for his transgressions. What does the order of the texts in the Bible have to do with anything?

But to declare someone's post as Irrelevant, seems just to side step the whole issue about the role of prophets. For example, Tertullian, 145-220, wrote that the Book of Enoch, as it was restored through Ezra, is scripture. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, = ANF 4:15-16).

Here is what Tertullian actually said.

Tertullian II. On the Apparel of Women. Book I.Chap. III. -
I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either.
. . .
If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.​

So there must have been a need for it to have been restored, something must have happened to it earlier.

Tertullian explains what happened, when one actually reads it instead of copy/pasting from 2d-3d hand sources.

We know that the Book of Enoch was cited by New Testament writers, like Jude. And it was used in early Christianity, is in Etheopian Bibles, but not in other bibles. It fell out of use by some, was still cited by others. Three different types of manuscripts in three languages were later discovered. However, the Book of Enoch is not in most present day bibles. What would happen to the Christians' closed canon, if an authenticated version was discovered?

Note Tertullian said that Enoch was not in the Jewish canon

Origen, Irenaeus & Clement of Alexandria cite the Book of Enoch without questioning its sacred character. (ANF, 1:481, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Bk.4, chap.16:2; & compare Book of Enoch 15; Origen, De Principiis, Bk.1, chap.8:1; ANF, 4:264-5).

Other books have been cited, or mentioned by scripture writers who must have considered them scriptures too. What if these writings were discovered. Would they be accepted as canonical?

1. The Book of the Covenant. (Exodus 24:4, 7).
2. Books of the Wars of the Lord. (Num.21:14).
3. Book of Jasher (Josh.10:13; 2 Sam.1:18.)
4. A Book of Statues. (1 Sam.10:25).
5. Book of the Acts of Solomon. (1 Kings 11:41.)
6. Books of Nathan and Gad. (1 Chron.29:29; 2 Chron.9:29.)
7. Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo. (2 Chron.9:29; 12:15
& 13:22.)
8. Book of Shemaiah. (2 Chron.12:15.)
9. Book of Jehu. (2 Chron.20:34).
10. Acts of Uzziah, Written by Isaiah. (2 Chron.26:22.)
11. Sayings of the Seers. (2 Chron.33:19.)
12. Missing Epistles of Paul. (1 Cor.5:9; Eph.3:3; Col.4:16.)
13. Missing Epistle of Jude. (Jude 3.)
14. Prophecies of Enoch. (Jude 14).

A large number of these citations probably refer to the same composition. For example, the references found in 1 and 2 Kings to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the Acts of Solomon, possibly denote a single work (Christensen, 14[5]:29). It is a common practice, even in modern society, to refer to one thing by several different names. For example, a person may refer to Josephus’ work, Wars of the Jews, as “Josephus,” “Josephus’ Wars,” “Jewish Wars,” “Wars of the Jews,” “Josephus’ Jewish Wars,” etc.—all of which designate the same composition. In similar fashion, the many works cited throughout Kings and Chronicles very possibly refer to different sections of a single work. If there was a single original (one referred to by several names), it was likely a highly detailed record of the reigns of the kings in Israel and Judah. As a king lived and died, the records of his reign were added to this work by a scribe, prophet, historian, record keeper, or even by the administration of the next king, making it a composite work of many writers. The various names for this single account might have designated certain sections that made up the composite work. The differences between Kings’ and Chronicles’ naming and citing of the sections of the original, can be understood by the differences that exist among modern citation styles. The style of citation, list of works cited, and information provided vary widely, for example, among such modern-day guides as the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, The Chicago Manual of Style, and Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations.

Apologetics Press - Are There Lost Books of the Bible?​

That a Bible writer refers to some other writing is not necessarily an endorsement of it as scripture. Paul quoted from pagan poets five times. I don't see anyone claiming their writings were inspired scripture.

[Continued next post]

 

[Der Alte]

That a Bible writer refers to some other writing is not necessarily an endorsement of it as scripture. Paul quoted from pagan poets five times. I don't see anyone claiming their writings were inspired scripture.

As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath' humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.”​

Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen. In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.

Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5. 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218. Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.

In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2, while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3 and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7. Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and 77:1, respectively).

A number of sayings of Jesus Christ, are reported to have come up missing, are not included in present day canons. Some of these sayings were preserved by some of the earliest Christians. While other sayings are questioned as to their authenticity. (After Jesus, The Triumph of Christianity, Reader's Digest, p.77-87). In the Nag Hammadi texts, The Gospel of Thomas starts with the words: "These are the secret teachings which the Lord who was dead and liveth (i.e., the risen Savior) spoke to Judas-Thomas...." (A. Gullaumont, H.-Ch. Peuch, G. Quispel, W. Till, and Y. 'abd al Masih,
The Gospel According to Thomas (New York: Harpers,
1959), p. 3. What if these sayings contain real authentic sayings of the risen Lord?

Every scrap of manuscript found buried in the sand somewhere which purports to be scripture, is not!

"I[t] was the heretic hunters of later ages who destroyed the early image by suppressing every Saying which did not agree with their concept of orthodoxy." Were there others hunting down writings & suppressing works that could have been authentic scriptures, had they not been destroyed? The Gospels are said to have been based on the collections of the sayings of Jesus before the canonical gospels were written. But how much of the sayings of Jesus were preserved is uncertain. (O. Cullmann, in Hibberts Journal 60 (1961f.), p.121; After Jesus, p.80; Dr. Huge Nibley, Since Cumorah, (SLC, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1967), 94-95).

More Mormon writings with no, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical evidence.

What we have in our present New Testament can't be everything that Christ taught. [Assumption! DA] Where are the 40 day post-resurrection sayings of Christ? Though conflicting claims & interpretations raged in the early centuries of Christendom concerning the "40 day sayings of Jesus". Despite this, we know that there were many things which Jesus taught & showed his followers before Christ's ascension, that are not in present day New Testaments. (Acts 1:1-11; Mormonism & Early Christianity, by Dr. Huge Nibley, 1987, p.10-44).

More Mormon writings and no, zero, none credible, verifiable historical evidence. I believe what God and Jesus said about their words.

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Mar 13:31, Luk 21:33​

What if an authenticated Book of Jesus Christ was ever discovered?

See Matt 24;35, et al.

Such as an Epistle of CHRIST to Peter & Paul. (August. de Consens. Evang. 1.1. c. 9, 19). Some other Books under the name of CHRIST. Ibid. c. 3. An Epistle of CHRIST, produced by the Manichees. August. contr. Faust, 1. 28. c. 4. (The Lost Books of the Bible, 1926 Alpha House, p.287-8, Table I, C, 1-3).

When I hear that all of the New Testament was cited by early Christians, thus the present New Testament is authentic. [Never heard that one! DA] I have also ask then, why the Shepherd of Hermas & other earlier canonized New Testament books aren't in most present day Bibles, as also with Clement, Barnabus, etc. Plus, I've always been interested in the doctrines that early Christians back up with such citations, such as the pre-existence, deification, Christ's world treks, Christ's descent into hell & baptism for the dead. Why isn't this being pointed out too, when different modern Christians use this argument that the New Testament was all cited?

A citation in the ECF does not in and of itself canonize an extrabiblical writing, just as Paul's citing Greek poets does not make their writings scriptural.

 

[Der Alte]

Even Paul says not to dump the law or works.

The work of sanctification began when we were born again and it will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Philippians 1:6).
Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Proverbs 21:21
21 He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth life, righteousness, and honour.

Hanging a whole theology on a few words of Paul to the exclusion of Christ's many words on the subject of salvation is dangerous and unscriptural. How about these other words of Paul which show salvation is not by the grace of Christ alone?:
Romans 8:24
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

oops what happened to being saved by grace alone?

Since when are the words of Christ not "credible, verifiable, historical evidence?"
Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matthew 7:21-27 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

You seem to be doing what you accuse me of.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith​

 

[RevelationTestament]

You seem to be doing what you accuse me of.

What did I "accuse" you of? I don't believe I have accused you of anything. You are the one interjecting that somehow LDS Christians do not believe we are saved by(or because of) Christ's grace.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I am merely pointing out that there are other scriptures on the subject which make it clear that we will not be saved if we do not forgive others; if we do not do the will of the Father, etc. You seem to be insisting on a linear Greek type of interpretation of the scriptures which doesn't see room for anymore applicable scriptures on the subject. I am just using a Hebrew inclusive type of interpretation which applies all the scriptures on the subject of salvation, and which holds they ALL can apply. If you want to believe you don't have to forgive others to be forgiven on the judgment day, just remember that CHRIST told you so, and not Paul, and Paul may not be the one doing the judging.
Cheers​

 

[Norah63]

Another one is the message Bible. Is it orthodox or unorthodox?
personally any bible that gets read often is a good translation.
The Holy Spirit gives the light to the reader with an open heart.

 

[Ran77]

Another one is the message Bible. Is it orthodox or unorthodox?
personally any bible that gets read often is a good translation.
The Holy Spirit gives the light to the reader with an open heart.

I think you got that right.

 

[Rescued One]

What did I "accuse" you of? I don't believe I have accused you of anything. You are the one interjecting that somehow LDS Christians do not believe we are saved by(or because of) Christ's grace.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I am merely pointing out that there are other scriptures on the subject which make it clear that we will not be saved if we do not forgive others; if we do not do the will of the Father, etc.​

The only sin that can't be forgiven is blaspheny against the Holy Ghost. How many sins do you believe can't be forgiven?

You seem to be insisting on a linear Greek type of interpretation of the scriptures which doesn't see room for anymore applicable scriptures on the subject. I am just using a Hebrew inclusive type of interpretation which applies all the scriptures on the subject of salvation, and which holds they ALL can apply. If you want to believe you don't have to forgive others to be forgiven on the judgment day, just remember that CHRIST told you so, and not Paul, and Paul may not be the one doing the judging.
Cheers

We are saved to do God's will. He forgave us and we forgive others.

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.​

 

[James Is Back]

any bible that gets read often is a good translation.

Even if that Bible is against the True Gospel or against Christianity in general? What about the Satanic Bible? or how about a Bible that contradicts the true Bible's teaching?

 

[RevelationTestament]

The only sin that can't be forgiven is blaspheny against the Holy Ghost. How many sins do you believe can't be forgiven?

Any that we do not ultimately repent of.

We are saved to do God's will. He forgave us and we forgive others.

hopefully We cannot do God's will if we are not in Christ.

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Ok.
What does the Lord's prayer say? And is that only for non-Christians?
...."and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...."

 

[Rescued One]

Any that we do not ultimately repent of.

hopefully We cannot do God's will if we are not in Christ.

If we're saved we're in Christ and we have His spirit.

Ok.
What does the Lord's prayer say? And is that only for non-Christians?
...."and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...."

I have a feeling that Christians say the Lord's Prayer a lot more often than Mormons.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

It is evil to not forgive others. Is a Christian following Satan or Jesus?

John 10
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

Matthew 22:39
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Loving and forgiving go hand in hand.