The “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible

[PrincetonGuy]

Why is the KJV the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Joseph Smith considered the KJV to be so severely corrupted that he produced what he referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible. That “translation” is referred to by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the “Joseph Smith Translation,” or simply as the “JST.” Indeed, Bibles published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for use by Mormons include in the footnotes the hundreds of places where the Joseph Smith Translation differs from the KJV; that is, unless the difference are so extensive that they cannot be accommodated in the footnotes. In that case, they are included in the Appendix between the Bible Dictionary and the Gazetteer with the following heading:

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION
EXCERPTS TOO LENGTHY FOR INCLUSION IN FOOTNOTES​

Of particular interest to me is Joseph Smith’s radical rewriting of Romans 7:5-27 in which he has Paul writing precisely the opposite of what he really wrote according to the KJV, all other translations of the Bible, and every ancient Greek, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Syriac manuscript of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. If the KJV is as ridiculously inaccurate as Joseph Smith taught that it is, why is it the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead of what Joseph Smith referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Why is the KJV the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the KJV because latter-day revelation supports the KJV above other versions. (see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/...-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible?lang=eng )

All other conclusions are speculative.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the KJV because latter-day revelation supports the KJV above other versions. (see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/...-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible?lang=eng )

All other conclusions are speculative.

I am familiar with that website. It states, in part,

All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church.​

This statement is absolutely false! Joseph Smith considered the KJV to be so severely corrupted that he produced what he referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible that expressly contradicts the KJV in hundreds of places—sometimes radically so!

 

[bbbbbbb]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Community of Christ) holds the copyright to the Joseph Smith translation and the LDS does not and, therefore, cannot legally print it without the permission of the copyright holder.

 

[Norah63]

Actually my copy simply has, Holy Scriptures on the cover.
There being so many bibles around these days, everything from living to conversation, to street lingo.
Let the revelation prayed for be the reward for reading anything.

 

[drstevej]

Of particular interest to me is Joseph Smith’s radical rewriting of Romans 7:5-27 in which he has Paul writing precisely the opposite of what he really wrote according to the KJV, all other translations of the Bible, and every ancient Greek, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Syriac manuscript of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Check out the JST mangling of Romans 8:30 where he changes justified to sanctified to suit his theology. To call this a translation is ludicrous.

Also note the Song of Solomon is ditched in the JST.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon

Song of Solomon
Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.”

 

[TasteForTruth]

I am familiar with that website.

"That website" is the official website of the LDS church, and the statement I provided comes from the highest authority in the Church. It answers your question authoritatively. Why are you so dismissive of it?

It states, in part,

All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church.​

This statement is absolutely false!

If you want taken seriously your assertion that this statement is false, you'll need to provide statements by each president of the Church in which they encourage members to discontinue using the KJV.

Joseph Smith considered the KJV to be so severely corrupted that he produced what he referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible that expressly contradicts the KJV in hundreds of places—sometimes radically so!

That Joseph Smith produced an edited version of the KJV in the JST is an indisputable fact. Your assertion that he believed or claimed that the Bible was "severely corrupted" or "ridiculously inaccurate" is no supported by this fact. Do you have something to offer to substantiate these ideas, other than your own opinion?

 

[RevelationTestament]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Community of Christ) holds the copyright to the Joseph Smith translation and the LDS does not and, therefore, cannot legally print it without the permission of the copyright holder.

Actually, I believe they hold the copyright to the "Inspired Version" and not the JST, which comprises those changes printed before Joseph's death.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Why is the KJV the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Joseph Smith considered the KJV to be so severely corrupted that he produced what he referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible. That “translation” is referred to by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the “Joseph Smith Translation,” or simply as the “JST.” Indeed, Bibles published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for use by Mormons include in the footnotes the hundreds of places where the Joseph Smith Translation differs from the KJV; that is, unless the difference are so extensive that they cannot be accommodated in the footnotes. In that case, they are included in the Appendix between the Bible Dictionary and the Gazetteer with the following heading:

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION
EXCERPTS TOO LENGTHY FOR INCLUSION IN FOOTNOTES​

Of particular interest to me is Joseph Smith’s radical rewriting of Romans 7:5-27 in which he has Paul writing precisely the opposite of what he really wrote according to the KJV, all other translations of the Bible, and every ancient Greek, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Syriac manuscript of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. If the KJV is as ridiculously inaccurate as Joseph Smith taught that it is, why is it the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead of what Joseph Smith referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible?

You seem to be confusing the JST and the "Inspired version."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, I believe they hold the copyright to the "Inspired Version" and not the JST, which comprises those changes printed before Joseph's death.

I think you might be correct about that. Do you know who does hold the copyright to the JST? It seems to me that it is not the LDS, otherwise they would publish it and use it rather than ignoring it completely.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I am familiar with that website. It states, in part,

All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church.​

This statement is absolutely false! Joseph Smith considered the KJV to be so severely corrupted that he produced what he referred to as a new, inspired “translation” of the Bible that expressly contradicts the KJV in hundreds of places—sometimes radically so!

Actually, Joseph reported that he prayed on the subject and was told that the KJV was accurate enough that it could be used. I personally, rarely pay attention to the JST. I find it a lot less important than the direct revelations to Joseph Smith in the D & C. Also I feel the Lord knew Emma's heart, and perhaps knew she would end up with the writings, and this gives me pause. Further, her church is known to have changed some things with D & C, so in my view the Inspired Version is suspect.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I think you might be correct about that. Do you know who does hold the copyright to the JST? It seems to me that it is not the LDS, otherwise they would publish it and use it rather than ignoring it completely.

We don't ignore it completely. It is printed in footnotes, and in an appendix.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We don't ignore it completely. It is printed in footnotes, and in an appendix.

While that is true, it is no longer treated as a translation worthy of serious study by itself.

 

[TasteForTruth]

While that is true, it is no longer treated as a translation worthy of serious study by itself.

Studying and understanding the Standard Works is sufficient. And it does not preclude anyone from studying the inspired version of the KJV.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I hadn't heard of the Joseph Smith translation...

 

[TasteForTruth]

I hadn't heard of the Joseph Smith translation...

Yes. It is not a "translation" in the traditional sense. More like an inspired, restorative revision.

 

[drstevej]

Yes. It is not a "translation" in the traditional sense. More like an inspired, restorative revision.

Nor is a bull frog a translation in the traditional sense.

More like an inspired, restorative revision

Prove that it restored truth! Ribit

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes. It is not a "translation" in the traditional sense. More like an inspired, restorative revision.

You mean, like from "advanced revelation"?

 

[TasteForTruth]

You mean, like from "advanced revelation"?

No idea what "advanced" revelation is. But from where I sit, the process and result were divinely inspired, yes.

 

[Ran77]

Actually, Joseph reported that he prayed on the subject and was told that the KJV was accurate enough that it could be used. I personally, rarely pay attention to the JST. I find it a lot less important than the direct revelations to Joseph Smith in the D & C. Also I feel the Lord knew Emma's heart, and perhaps knew she would end up with the writings, and this gives me pause. Further, her church is known to have changed some things with D & C, so in my view the Inspired Version is suspect.

Ditto.