LDS Mormon Edition of KJV .... Add Thou not unto His Words!

Phoebe Ann said:

The KJV that Mormons used when I was a Mormon did not say that marriage has to be administered in a temple for time and eternity if you want eternal life. The Mormon elders didn't mention that either. What laws and ordinances does the JST restore? Why are portions of the JST printed in the Pearl of Great Price?

According to your church, missionaries are sent out to bring non-Mormons to Christ. After all, they have to become Mormons to"Come to Christ."

Click to expand...

Thankfully the work will continue until every soul will have the opportunity to become a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ. Nothing will stop the work of the Lord.

He is the way said:

I don't have any Greek manuscript to compare, but I do have a Bible passage. As you know the original Greek manuscript of the Bible has never been found. This passage is from the Old Testament which was in Hebrew:

(Old Testament | Numbers 23:19)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Compare these passages:

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 26:13)

13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

(Old Testament | Amos 7:6)

6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

(Old Testament | Jonah 3:9 - 10)

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 ¶ And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

It is clear that God does not repent.

Click to expand...

So rather than take the Bible seriously enough to wrestle with its complexities, nuances, and difficulties--just change what it says?

That's not resolving a contradiction, that's destroying the integrity of Sacred Writ.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

So rather than take the Bible seriously enough to wrestle with its complexities, nuances, and difficulties--just change what it says?

That's not resolving a contradiction, that's destroying the integrity of Sacred Writ.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So which is it, God repents or He does not repent? I believe God does NOT repent:

(Old Testament | Numbers 23:19)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

He is the way said:

So which is it, God repents or He does not repent? I believe God does NOT repent:

Click to expand...

I believe that these are different uses of nacham to illustrate different points.

In Numbers the point is that God isn't like you or I in which we lie, fail, and act flippantly. He's God.

Elsewhere God is said to have "repented" as an anthropomorphism to indicate a change in direction, at least from an external appearance. God tells Jonah that if Nineveh doesn't change their tune then judgment will fall upon them, Jonah (very reluctantly) preaches and Nineveh repents, and God ends up not bringing judgment upon the city and its inhabitants; and so the text describes God's apparent change in direction as "repenting".

In Hebrew nacham carries a number of senses that don't quite work with the English word "repent". In its most primitive, basic sense it really just means "to sigh", a deep breath. Because it is a sigh it can be a sigh of relief, a sigh of comfort, a sigh of grief; and thus can communicate being sorry over what one has done, or compassion, or comfort.



-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I believe that these are different uses of nacham to illustrate different points.

In Numbers the point is that God isn't like you or I in which we lie, fail, and act flippantly. He's God.

Elsewhere God is said to have "repented" as an anthropomorphism to indicate a change in direction, at least from an external appearance. God tells Jonah that if Nineveh doesn't change their tune then judgment will fall upon them, Jonah (very reluctantly) preaches and Nineveh repents, and God ends up not bringing judgment upon the city and its inhabitants; and so the text describes God's apparent change in direction as "repenting".

In Hebrew nacham carries a number of senses that don't quite work with the English word "repent". In its most primitive, basic sense it really just means "to sigh", a deep breath. Because it is a sigh it can be a sigh of relief, a sigh of comfort, a sigh of grief; and thus can communicate being sorry over what one has done, or compassion, or comfort.

View attachment 268896

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

The Bible is better when it is written as God intended it to be written. That is why Joseph Smith was given the JST or in other words the Bible as God intended it to be written. God's word does not contradict itself. It never has and never will because God's word is law and can not be broken.

He is the way said:

I don't have any Greek manuscript to compare, but I do have a Bible passage. As you know the original Greek manuscript of the Bible has never been found. This passage is from the Old Testament which was in Hebrew:

(Old Testament | Numbers 23:19)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Compare these passages:

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 26:13)

13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

(Old Testament | Amos 7:6)

6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

(Old Testament | Jonah 3:9 - 10)

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 ¶ And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

It is clear that God does not repent.

Click to expand...

I think Via Crucis gave a good explanation of this that doesn't require that we change the original hebrew word. Seems like the problem you have is with the translation and not the text itself, so that doesn't demonstrate what Joseph Smith did was a superior translation.

Again, how was he not just going through the Bible and editing it to suite his needs? You're making a theological argument against the text or translation, but not a textual argument and I prefer the safer ground of what we know the text to say rather than what we want it to be.

The Bible is not a perfectly consistent text because it's written by different authors with different perspectives. It is not like the Quran (which claims to be dictated by God directly) but is divinely inspired and sacred writ by human authors. Thus we have to consider the perspective it is written from.

I've done a bit of reading since my last response and I want to know where Joseph Smith got his idea to translate John 1.1. He has it "in the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son."

Which ancient text, of the thousands that we have, says anything like this? Here's what the Nestle Aland says; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and was God.

How do you justify this "translation"? How is it translation? Why do all of our ancient texts (to my knowledge) use the word λόγος and not εὐαγγέλιόν to describe the subject of John 1.1?

He is the way said:

The Bible is better when it is written as God intended it to be written. That is why Joseph Smith was given the JST or in other words the Bible as God intended it to be written. God's word does not contradict itself. It never has and never will because God's word is law and can not be broken.

Click to expand...

And so the cart is put in front of the horse, and then you shoot the horse.

-CryptoLutheran

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I think Via Crucis gave a good explanation of this that doesn't require that we change the original hebrew word. Seems like the problem you have is with the translation and not the text itself, so that doesn't demonstrate what Joseph Smith did was a superior translation.

Again, how was he not just going through the Bible and editing it to suite his needs? You're making a theological argument against the text or translation, but not a textual argument and I prefer the safer ground of what we know the text to say rather than what we want it to be.

The Bible is not a perfectly consistent text because it's written by different authors with different perspectives. It is not like the Quran (which claims to be dictated by God directly) but is divinely inspired and sacred writ by human authors. Thus we have to consider the perspective it is written from.

I've done a bit of reading since my last response and I want to know where Joseph Smith got his idea to translate John 1.1. He has it "in the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son."

Which ancient text, of the thousands that we have, says anything like this? Here's what the Nestle Aland says; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and was God.

How do you justify this "translation"? How is it translation? Why do all of our ancient texts (to my knowledge) use the word λόγος and not εὐαγγέλιόν to describe the subject of John 1.1?

Click to expand...

You asked: "Again, how was he not just going through the Bible and editing it to suite his needs?"

Joseph Smith was tasked by God to do many things and this was one of them:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:15 - 16)

15 For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty–ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows—
16 Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man:

You asked: "I've done a bit of reading since my last response and I want to know where Joseph Smith got his idea to translate John 1.1. He has it "in the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son."

I have been questioned about this passage before. Perhaps this is the JST rendering that readers find the most questionable. As I have stated before, we do not have the original manuscript of the New Testament, nor do all of the copies completely agree with one another. It is my opinion that Joseph Smith was given this passage and all of the other passages directly from God.

ViaCrucis said:

And so the cart is put in front of the horse, and then you shoot the horse.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

There were mistakes made in the Bible, but they were the mistakes of men and not God.

Gee, what a shock...restorationists deny the scriptures.

Lord have mercy. I don't know that Mormons even realize what they're doing...or rather, what JS did. Our friends ViaCrucis and Ignatius the Kiwi have hammered the last nail into the coffin of JS' fake 'restoration'. Mormons: Do you want to be lowered into the pit with it, or do you want to get out of it and actually follow the scriptures you claim to revere?

He is the way said:

You asked: "Again, how was he not just going through the Bible and editing it to suite his needs?"

Joseph Smith was tasked by God to do many things and this was one of them:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:15 - 16)

15 For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty–ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows—
16 Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man:

You asked: "I've done a bit of reading since my last response and I want to know where Joseph Smith got his idea to translate John 1.1. He has it "in the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son."

I have been questioned about this passage before. Perhaps this is the JST rendering that readers find the most questionable. As I have stated before, we do not have the original manuscript of the New Testament, nor do all of the copies completely agree with one another. It is my opinion that Joseph Smith was given this passage and all of the other passages directly from God.

Click to expand...

How is it possible that all manuscripts of John's Gospel managed to completely destroy the original intent of the author on such a critical passage as John 1.1, which has been extensively copied, commented on and used throughout the Church for centuries? This would be a massive and incredibly critical error to the text that corrupted the entire textual tradition. You might have a case if there were one text that had Joseph Smith's translation, but there is none, thus you must plead that we don't have the originals and can't know. This is a flimsy argument and if you're suggesting we should ignore the entirety of the textual tradition to trust the word of a man who couldn't even translate ancient Egyptian, you have a pretty weak argument. Even you must see that.

I was also thinking also about what Joseph's rewriting of the passage actually accomplishes and it seems to me to say in the beginning was the Gospel (instead of the Logos) actually destroys the intended meaning.

The meaning of John 1.1 as all other manuscripts have it, has been extensively commented on for over two thousand years. To say Jesus is the Logos is to talk meaningfully to both Jewish and Greek audiences and fits well within the first century. To the Greco-roman audience it is to say that Jesus is the incarnate logic of the universe, the very principle upon which all things are derived. What was Joseph's intent in rewording it to say the Gospel was in the beginning instead of the word? How does it fit a first century mind?

He is the way said:

There were mistakes made in the Bible, but they were the mistakes of men and not God.

Click to expand...

Why is God's word subject to the mistakes of men? Is he unable to preserve it effectively?

He is the way said:

There were mistakes made in the Bible, but they were the mistakes of men and not God.

Click to expand...

That's a neat trick.

"No officer, I wasn't breaking the law by speeding. It's that the law was wrong and so I had to fix it by speeding."

-CryptoLutheran

dzheremi said:

Gee, what a shock...restorationists deny the scriptures.

Lord have mercy. I don't know that Mormons even realize what they're doing...or rather, what JS did. Our friends ViaCrucis and Ignatius the Kiwi have hammered the last nail into the coffin of JS' fake 'restoration'. Mormons: Do you want to be lowered into the pit with it, or do you want to get out of it and actually follow the scriptures you claim to revere?

Click to expand...

The Book of Mormon emphasizes the need to keep the commandments of LOVE which is the whole duty of man. The Book of Mormon is the proof that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. God is just and not unfair. He has given us the means, authority, and methodology to do the necessary ordinances for everyone who has ever lived so they can be judged fairly:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:6)

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How is it possible that all manuscripts of John's Gospel managed to completely destroy the original intent of the author on such a critical passage as John 1.1, which has been extensively copied, commented on and used throughout the Church for centuries? This would be a massive and incredibly critical error to the text that corrupted the entire textual tradition. You might have a case if there were one text that had Joseph Smith's translation, but there is none, thus you must plead that we don't have the originals and can't know. This is a flimsy argument and if you're suggesting we should ignore the entirety of the textual tradition to trust the word of a man who couldn't even translate ancient Egyptian, you have a pretty weak argument. Even you must see that.

I was also thinking also about what Joseph's rewriting of the passage actually accomplishes and it seems to me to say in the beginning was the Gospel (instead of the Logos) actually destroys the intended meaning.

The meaning of John 1.1 as all other manuscripts have it, has been extensively commented on for over two thousand years. To say Jesus is the Logos is to talk meaningfully to both Jewish and Greek audiences and fits well within the first century. To the Greco-roman audience it is to say that Jesus is the incarnate logic of the universe, the very principle upon which all things are derived. What was Joseph's intent in rewording it to say the Gospel was in the beginning instead of the word? How does it fit a first century mind?

Click to expand...

The word of God is the gospel. The gospel of God has been on the earth since the beginning. Joseph Smith's intent has always been to glorify God and do the will of the Father.

He is the way said:

The word of God is the gospel. The gospel of God has been on the earth since the beginning. Joseph Smith's intent has always been to glorify God and do the will of the Father.

Click to expand...

What are we talking about here? The Gospel as a concept or the Gospel as in the text? The former surely right? Because even then I don't understand what John 1 accomplishes by replacing Logos with Gospel.

The Gospel was then not a concept. There was the good news that the emperor sent to his subjects throughout the empire but the idea of the Gospel as an idea was a result of Jesus' ministry, not any pre-existing idea from which I can determine. It makes sense for John to say Jesus is the Logos as this speaks tot he heart of a Jewish and Greek Audience. I'm not sure what impact John's words would have had had they actually said what Joseph Smith determined them to be.

I honestly hope you see my problem with this rewording. John 1 isn't incidental, it isn't an unimportant part of the entire Gospel, it's the foundation upon which everything else is built and to suggest that it was corrupted at a point in time when every other text was influenced by that corruption is to cast doubt on the entire Gospel.

Can you explain to me how this new 'translation' fits into a first century context? Have Mormons attempted to prove this is the correct reading of John from the textual tradition? Do LDS bibles keep the JST or are they the same as the rest of our bibles?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why is God's word subject to the mistakes of men? Is he unable to preserve it effectively?

Click to expand...

So you believe there are no mistakes in the Bible? Here is one of many:

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:26)

26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
(Old Testament | 2 Chronicles 4:5)

5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

He is the way said:

So you believe there are no mistakes in the Bible? Here is one of many:

(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:26)

26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
(Old Testament | 2 Chronicles 4:5)

5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

Click to expand...

That's about the building of the temple right? I look at that from a historian's perspective. While I don't know which account is ultimately true I can know there were many baths within the Temple. Does this bother me as a contradiction? Not really, this is simply a discrepancy between two different accounts of the same incident or thing. I'm not really partial to typical a bible is inerrant view.

I think however when you want to suggest that John 1.1 was critically mishandled in such a way as to change the entire meaning you damage the scripture more than by pointing out that minor contradiction.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What are we talking about here? The Gospel as a concept or the Gospel as in the text? The former surely right? Because even then I don't understand what John 1 accomplishes by replacing Logos with Gospel.

The Gospel was then not a concept. There was the good news that the emperor sent to his subjects throughout the empire but the idea of the Gospel as an idea was a result of Jesus' ministry, not any pre-existing idea from which I can determine. It makes sense for John to say Jesus is the Logos as this speaks tot he heart of a Jewish and Greek Audience. I'm not sure what impact John's words would have had had they actually said what Joseph Smith determined them to be.

I honestly hope you see my problem with this rewording. John 1 isn't incidental, it isn't an unimportant part of the entire Gospel, it's the foundation upon which everything else is built and to suggest that it was corrupted at a point in time when every other text was influenced by that corruption is to cast doubt on the entire Gospel.

Can you explain to me how this new 'translation' fits into a first century context? Have Mormons attempted to prove this is the correct reading of John from the textual tradition? Do LDS bibles keep the JST or are they the same as the rest of our bibles?

Click to expand...

I deem this scripture to to be one of the most important scriptures in the Bible:

(New Testament | John 10:34 - 35)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Yet I believe we that we are far apart about what this scripture actually means. Why did Jesus call them Gods? Who changed the meaning of this scripture?

Scriptures put out by The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints have headings and footnotes that are in harmony with our beliefs. The text itself is from the KJV of the Bible. We also have combinations (triple & quad) that include the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.