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

[drstevej]

I view the JST basically as God's commentary on the KJV

That is not the Mormon view.

A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible in English, which the Prophet Joseph Smith began in June 1830. He was commanded by God to make the translation and regarded it as part of his calling as a prophet.

The Prophet learned many things during the translation process. Several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were received because of his translation work (such as D&C 76, 77, 91, and 132). Also, the Lord gave Joseph specific instructions for the translation, which were recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 37:1; 45:60–61; 76:15–18; 90:13; 91; 94:10; 104:58; 124:89). The book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew, now included in the Pearl of Great Price, were taken directly from the Joseph Smith Translation.


The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13).

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst

 

[drstevej]

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Joseph ADDED and SUBTRACTED and claimed it was his prophetic calling to do so.


This is not RESTORED Christianity it is Smithite Revisionism to bolster his status. And it impressed teenage girls.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Joseph ADDED and SUBTRACTED and claimed it was his prophetic calling to do so.

This is not RESTORED Christianity it is Smithite Revisionism to bolster his status. And it impressed teenage girls.

You have tried to allege that twice now, but have utterly failed to show how the meaning of Revelation or the scriptures as a whole was changed or damaged. The point of the scriptures is to convey meaning - not specific words. You basically ignored this point I was trying to make:

This is actually how I have come to understand the JST with the exception of Moses. English peoples have made hundreds of commentaries on the Bible including Revelation, and no one views them as "changing" Revelation. I view the JST basically as God's commentary on the KJV which has been through at least 2 translations. When things get translated meaning invariably gets lost. So, I view the JST as Joseph Smith's attempt to reveal the original meaning, and not an attempt to remove it or add to it. The 2 "changes" to Revelation brought up in this thread are actually quite innocuous, and do little to change the meaning of the scriptures except to make them a little more clear for English readers. If anything the one I might expect DrSteve to bring up, the change of the word "days" in Revelation 12 to "years," he did not bring up. I believe this to be a change to the original word "days." I do not believe Revelation was originally written with the word "years." This fact is supported by the time, times and half time also discussed in Revelation 12 which is a Jewish way of saying year, 2 years, and a half - the Hebrew uses the same word for year and time. It is a reiteration of the 1260 "day" period the woman goes into the wilderness. The thing is we know from Daniel 9 that the Lord is using a day for a year in these visions like He did with early Israel. Hence, the Jews had 490 years after the Babylonian captivity to build up the walls and the city to the Messiah, and not 490 literal "days." They didn't accept their Messiah, so the city was destroyed according to the vision right on time. So Joseph saw the prophetic meaning of "days" and revealed the meaning. This is basically what commentaries are supposed to do. I see basically all the JST as revealing additional meaning - not usually as a correction of the actual original words. I tend not to think of it as terribly important tbh, but some may like the additional insight. I think it is interesting.

Joseph Smith viewed His call as revealing meaning in the KJV scriptures and not as adding or subtracting from them. Verses are not eliminated to "hide" what God is trying to convey, but actually the opposite - they are expounded upon. I believe the JST actually shows that LDS Christians hold great faith in the KJV of the Bible at least, as opposed to the view our critics constantly try to paint that LDS reject the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon or other such nonsense. Yes, we do believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, and indeed history has revealed even more corrections the KJV needed than the JST revealed. For instance it is clear that the masoretic scribes left out a verse in Psalms 145 after verse 13 - a scribal error which got carried over to the KJV.

 

[Rescued One]

...
Joseph Smith viewed His call as revealing meaning in the KJV scriptures and not as adding or subtracting from them. Verses are not eliminated to "hide" what God is trying to convey, but actually the opposite - they are expounded upon. I believe the JST actually shows that LDS Christians hold great faith in the KJV of the Bible at least, as opposed to the view our critics constantly try to paint that LDS reject the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon or other such nonsense. Yes, we do believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, and indeed history has revealed even more corrections the KJV needed than the JST revealed. For instance it is clear that the masoretic scribes left out a verse in Psalms 145 after verse 13 - a scribal error which got carried over to the KJV.

Joseph Smith taught that “many important points, touching the salvation of man, have been taken from man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (History of the Church, 1:245). He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (History of the Church, 6:57.)
Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2009, Chapter 4, p. 29

Joseph Smith didn't even show any consistency of doctrine when he changed the KJV New Testament:

Romans 4:5 JST "But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Romans 4:16 JST "Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the endthe promise might be sure to all the seed..."

He didn't change Ephesians 2:8-9 at all!

"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation."
Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 206

 

[Moodshadow]

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought Mormons always knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

When did the Salt Lake church canonize the JST?

Joseph Smith's extra-marital "marriages" have always been known about in the church, and in fact until last year you could find a public record of the sealings online. When I went to retrieve it, however, I discovered that it had been taken down, and then not long after that the church published its new "essay" on the subject of his polygamy on the lds.org website (it's still there). They are coming out with these essays on various subjects now, all anonymously written but obviously authorized by the GAs, since they are on the official church website. The one on polygamy has caused quite a stir among some of the TBMs, apparently especially among those who have believed all along that their beloved prophet couldn't possibly have been guilty of such moral turpitude. Some have written blogs and otherwise publicly that their testimonies have been shaken to the core and that they feel that they have been deceived for their entire lives. Others, who of course have acknowledged the truth all along, have chosen to pretty much ignore the whole thing and are praising the church for being "transparent" at last about it. Either way, it's causing some decline in membership as a result: the opposite of the desired effect.

My sincere apology concerning the JST, Phoebe Ann. The JST in its entirety has of course never been canonized, but only parts of it, in the PoGP. Numerous references are made to it in the footnotes of LDS scriptures.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Joseph Smith taught that “many important points, touching the salvation of man, have been taken from man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (History of the Church, 1:245). He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (History of the Church, 6:57.)
Book of Mormon Student Manual, 2009, Chapter 4, p. 29

Joseph Smith was largely reiterating the Book of Mormon which tells us the abominable church removed plain teachings from the gospel before the Bible was sent out to the nations. It is rather curious that we only have manuscripts going back to the time of the state church, and seem to have no earlier manuscripts. In this forum I have also discussed at some length how changing even one word, ie chittim to Italy, could hide the true meaning.

Joseph Smith didn't even show any consistency of doctrine when he changed the KJV New Testament:

Romans 4:5 JST "But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Romans 4:16 JST "Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the endthe promise might be sure to all the seed..."

I don't see the issue. I guess you are contending that He justifies the ungodly.

"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation."
Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 206

Yep. I believe this is a doctrine that has formed in the modern church as a result of the "Pauline" Christian movement which ignores all the other scriptures on point and even the words of Christ Himself.

 

[drstevej]

Smith Changed justified to sanctified in Romans 8:30

[1] He had no manuscript support.
[2] It is not a clarification it is a change of theology.
[3] He is not a prophet, linguist or even honest.

 

[Der Alte]

Joseph Smith was largely reiterating the Book of Mormon which tells us the abominable church removed plain teachings from the gospel before the Bible was sent out to the nations.

Other then Smith's declaration what evidence exists that anyone removed any plain teachings from the gospel?

It is rather curious that we only have manuscripts going back to the time of the state church, and seem to have no earlier manuscripts. In this forum I have also discussed at some length how changing even one word, ie chittim to Italy, could hide the true meaning.

The External Evidence for the Historicity of the New Testament
4. The Confirmation Of The New Testament Manuscripts By Early Church Fathers

The church fathers who lived in the first few centuries of the Christian church provided some 19,368 citations of the text of the Gospels alone. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr, 1.038 by Irenaeus, 1,017 by Clement of Alexandria, 9,231 by Origen, 3.822 by Tertullian, 734 by Hippolytus, and 3,258 by Eusebius (Geisler and Nix, General Introduction, 431).
Even before these authors, we find earlier citations: Pseudo-Barnabas (AD 70-130) cited Matthew. Mark, and Luke:, Clement of Rome (ca. AD 95-97) cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians:. Ignatius (ca. AD 110) referred to six of Paul's epistles:. Shepherd of Hermas (AD 115-140) cited Matthew. Mark. Acts, 1 Corinthians. and other books:. the Didache (ca. AD 120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians. and other books:. and Papias. companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. quotes John's Gospel (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1:463-64).
The significance of these citations is that they argue that the Gospels were in existence before they were cited. which places them within the first century. while some of the eyewitnesses (such as John) were still alive. Second. it also argues for an early date for the orthodox message of the life and teachings of .Jesus Christ. If this be the case, it virtually eliminates any time gap between the completion of the New Testament and the proclamation of orthodoxy.

Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Norman L. Geisler, William C. Roach, Baker Books, Jan 1, 2012
​

Yep. I believe this is a doctrine that has formed in the modern church as a result of the "Pauline" Christian movement which ignores all the other scriptures on point and even the words of Christ Himself.

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.

2 Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

Revelation 22 (KJV) says:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


=======

The LDS Joseph Smith Translation both adds and subtracts from the Book of Revelation. I will illustrate this in this thread with examples.


EXAMPLE ONE: Adding Words to the Book


JST Rev 1:7

7 For behold, he cometh in the clouds with ten thousands of his saints in the kingdom, clothed with the glory of his Father. And every eye shall see him; and they who pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
​

Revelation 1: 7 (KJV)

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
​

Revelation 1:7 (Greek Text)

ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς ναί ἀμήν
​

=========

The text in red in the JST is added. Can any LDS cite ONE ancient manuscript that supports this addition? If not Joseph is deserving of the Plagues of Revelation.

The key word are Joseph Smith TRANSLATION! When one compares the different translations of the Book of Revelation, every translation has different wordings. So what's the big deal? No one has the original manuscripts to The Book of Revelation anyways to compare which TRANSLATION closest to the original. So who cares? But, would the same standards applied to try to vilify Joseph Smith also have to be applied for every other translation of the Book of Revelations?

The New Testament from 26 Translations, General Editor Curtis Vaughan, Th. D., Pub. by Zondervan Pub. Co., Grand Rapids,​

Michigan, 1967.

April 1981 Conference talk: LDS Apostle, Howard W. Hunter, No Man Shall Add or Take Away.

JOHN'S BOOK OF REVELATION WAS REJECTED BY SOME EARLY CHRISTIANS: During the 3rd century a bishop of Alexandria named "...Dionysius the Great, set forth powerful
arguments against the common authorship of the two books." [The Gospel of John, & the Book of Revelation], "His reason for doing so was polemical. A sect proclaiming the imminent Second Coming
and the millennium was pointing at the Revelation to John as its authority. Dionysius responded with an attack on Revelation itself, which was destinted to jeopardize the book's canonical status for a long time...." (After Jesus, p. 86-7).

Some of the Greek bishops of the churches of Asia, representing the Seven Churches, to which John's Apocalypse is address, they rejected it because they felt that his predictions didn't come to pass. Thus they met in council at Laodicea in A.D. 360, & discredited this gospel & voted it out of the canon. While the Latin, or Roman Church continued to have it in the canon. They also didn't attempt to explain, nor deny, the failure of the prophecy. (A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticisms, (Boston: Sherman, French & Co., 1912), 103-4).

Later during the the 16th century A.D., Martin Luther and John Knox had some doubts about Revelation. (After Jesus, p.86-7). Luther however, still used the book of revelation to his advantage in
claiming, along with others, that the Pope was the predicted anti-Christ. While some from the Roman Church considered Martin Luther as the predicted anti-Christ. (Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther, Roland H. Bainton, paper back edition, 1950 by Pierce & Smith, & 1978, Bainton, Pub. by New American Library for Abingdon press, Nash., p.85; Quetzalcoatl and Quadalupe, (The Formation of Mexico National Consciousness 1531-1813), by Jacques Lafaye, 1974, Pub. by The Un. of Chicago Press, Chic. & Lon., 1976, p. 31-2).​

The Book of Revelation thus almost didn't make it in the canon, or was threatened to almost be taken out, & was by different Christians throughout history.

Around 300 A.D., in the Church in Africa, the CHELTENHAM CANON was used, it contained the four Gospels, 13 letters of Paul, the acts of the Apostles, Revelation, the 3 letters of John, & 2 letters of Peter. The book of James, & the book of Jude were not included in this particular canon.
​

​

​

​

Eusebius of Caesares, Church historian, 270-330, divided the books of the New Testament up into three categories. That which they accepted. Others that were unaccepted. And the apocryphal
writings, or those of questionable origin. Those which were accepted were the 4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters including Hebrews, 1 John, 1 Peter. However, Revelation was one of which was questionable but was accepted by some & was not so much by others. The books which were disputed were James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.

In 367 A.D., Athanasius in his annual Easter letter compiled the
books of the New Testament exactly as we have them today. Was he an inspired prophet who had the authority to settle the canonization issue? No, he was an early Christian who had his own particular view points. Still this did not settle the canonization issue for the books of the New Testament were to still go through several more changes from Athanasius's time (367) on down to the year A.D. 1611.

The CODEX SINAITICUS was used in the 5th century A.D. It contained the what we now have in the New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, & the Shepherd of Hermas.

THE CLERMONT LIST was found in the 6th century & it contained: Old Testament books from Genesis to Tobit, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, except Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, & Hebrews were not included. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, & the Revelation of Peter, however, were included.

Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 651-52.
​

Alfred Firmin Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origins of the New Testament, French title: La Naissance du Christianisme Les Origines du Nouveau Testament, translated by L. P. Jacks.

Gilles Quispel, The Secret Book of Revelation, (New York: McGraw-Hill Books Company, 1979).

​

R. H. Charles, Dr., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913). Charles, The Sacred Books And Early Literature Of The East, (NY & London, England: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, Inc., 1917), vol. 14, The Great Rejected Books of the Biblical Apocrypha, Old Testament Apocrypha, The Books of Adam & Eve.

​

Reader’s Digest, Jesus And His Times, (Pleasantville, New York and Montreal, Canada: The Reader’s Digest Associations, Inc., 1990). After Jesus, The Triumph of Christianity, (Pleasantville, New York and Montreal, Canada: The Reader’s Digest Associations, Inc., 1992). Mysteries of the Bible, The Enduring Questions of the Bible, (Pleasantville, NewYork and Montreal: The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 1988). Reader’s Digest’s ABC's Of The Bible, Kaari Ward, (Editor), 1991.

 

[Der Alte]

The key word are Joseph Smith TRANSLATION! When one compares the different translations of the Book of Revelation, every translation has different wordings. So what's the big deal? No one has the original manuscripts to The Book of Revelation anyways to compare which TRANSLATION closest to the original. So who cares? But, would the same standards applied to try to vilify Joseph Smith also have to be applied for every other translation of the Book of Revelations?

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

The New Testament from 26 Translations, General Editor Curtis Vaughan, Th. D., Pub. by Zondervan Pub. Co., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1967.

April 1981 Conference talk: LDS Apostle, Howard W. Hunter, No Man Shall Add or Take Away.

JOHN'S BOOK OF REVELATION WAS REJECTED BY SOME EARLY CHRISTIANS: During the 3rd century a bishop of Alexandria named "...Dionysius the Great, set forth powerful
arguments against the common authorship of the two books." [The Gospel of John, & the Book of Revelation], "His reason for doing so was polemical. A sect proclaiming the imminent Second Coming
and the millennium was pointing at the Revelation to John as its authority. Dionysius responded with an attack on Revelation itself, which was destinted to jeopardize the book's canonical status for a long time...." (After Jesus, p. 86-7).

Some of the Greek bishops of the churches of Asia, representing the Seven Churches, to which John's Apocalypse is address, they rejected it because they felt that his predictions didn't come to pass. Thus they met in council at Laodicea in A.D. 360, & discredited this gospel & voted it out of the canon. While the Latin, or Roman Church continued to have it in the canon. They also didn't attempt to explain, nor deny, the failure of the prophecy. (A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity And Early Criticisms, (Boston: Sherman, French & Co., 1912), 103-4).

Later during the the 16th century A.D., Martin Luther and John Knox had some doubts about Revelation. (After Jesus, p.86-7). Luther however, still used the book of revelation to his advantage in
claiming, along with others, that the Pope was the predicted anti-Christ. While some from the Roman Church considered Martin Luther as the predicted anti-Christ. (Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther, Roland H. Bainton, paper back edition, 1950 by Pierce & Smith, & 1978, Bainton, Pub. by New American Library for Abingdon press, Nash., p.85; Quetzalcoatl and Quadalupe, (The Formation of Mexico National Consciousness 1531-1813), by Jacques Lafaye, 1974, Pub. by The Un. of Chicago Press, Chic. & Lon., 1976, p. 31-2).

The Book of Revelation thus almost didn't make it in the canon, or was threatened to almost be taken out, & was by different Christians throughout history.

Around 300 A.D., in the Church in Africa, the CHELTENHAM CANON was used, it contained the four Gospels, 13 letters of Paul, the acts of the Apostles, Revelation, the 3 letters of John, & 2 letters of Peter. The book of James, & the book of Jude were not included in this particular canon.

Eusebius of Caesares, Church historian, 270-330, divided the books of the New Testament up into three categories. That which they accepted. Others that were unaccepted. And the apocryphal
writings, or those of questionable origin. Those which were accepted were the 4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters including Hebrews, 1 John, 1 Peter. However, Revelation was one of which was questionable but was accepted by some & was not so much by others. The books which were disputed were James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.

In 367 A.D., Athanasius in his annual Easter letter compiled the
books of the New Testament exactly as we have them today. Was he an inspired prophet who had the authority to settle the canonization issue? No, he was an early Christian who had his own particular view points. Still this did not settle the canonization issue for the books of the New Testament were to still go through several more changes from Athanasius's time (367) on down to the year A.D. 1611.

The CODEX SINAITICUS was used in the 5th century A.D. It contained the what we now have in the New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, & the Shepherd of Hermas.

THE CLERMONT LIST was found in the 6th century & it contained: Old Testament books from Genesis to Tobit, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, except Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, & Hebrews were not included. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, & the Revelation of Peter, however, were included.

Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 651-52.
Alfred Firmin Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origins of the New Testament, French title: La Naissance du Christianisme Les Origines du Nouveau Testament, translated by L. P. Jacks.

Gilles Quispel, The Secret Book of Revelation, (New York: McGraw-Hill Books Company, 1979).
R. H. Charles, Dr., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913). Charles, The Sacred Books And Early Literature Of The East, (NY & London, England: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, Inc., 1917), vol. 14, The Great Rejected Books of the Biblical Apocrypha, Old Testament Apocrypha, The Books of Adam & Eve.
Reader’s Digest, Jesus And His Times, (Pleasantville, New York and Montreal, Canada: The Reader’s Digest Associations, Inc., 1990). After Jesus, The Triumph of Christianity, (Pleasantville, New York and Montreal, Canada: The Reader’s Digest Associations, Inc., 1992). Mysteries of the Bible, The Enduring Questions of the Bible, (Pleasantville, NewYork and Montreal: The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 1988). Reader’s Digest’s ABC's Of The Bible, Kaari Ward, (Editor), 1991.

Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! See above response.

 

[mmksparbud]

Just to get my facts straight--Did JS "translate" the whole bible, certain books, or just Revelation??---Did he do any "work" on the old testament?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Just to get my facts straight--Did JS "translate" the whole bible, certain books, or just Revelation??---Did he do any "work" on the old testament?

Yes.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst?lang=eng

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst?lang=eng

He did the old testament, too!!!!!???----Correct me if I am wrong--but there is no record of him having any schooling in ancient Hebrew writings. Commenting is one thing---translating?? Did he say that the old testament is also "compromised"?--because the dead sea scrolls proved they aren't.

 

[Rescued One]

He did the old testament, too!!!!!???----Correct me if I am wrong--but there is no record of him having any schooling in ancient Hebrew writings. Commenting is one thing---translating?? Did he say that the old testament is also "compromised"?--because the dead sea scrolls proved they aren't.

He added a large amount of extra biblical verses to Genesis. He claimed that the changes he made were revelations.

 

[ChetSinger]

He did the old testament, too!!!!!???----Correct me if I am wrong--but there is no record of him having any schooling in ancient Hebrew writings. Commenting is one thing---translating?? Did he say that the old testament is also "compromised"?--because the dead sea scrolls proved they aren't.

There are no manuscripts that contain the changes Joseph Smith made to the scriptures. Anyone who follows Joseph Smith just has to believe him when he says God Himself told him what to write down.

It's like the changes the Watchtower has made to the New Testament: there is no manuscript support among original-language documents for them. Followers just gotta have faith.

 

[drstevej]

Yep, The JST dumps the Song of Solomon in it's entirety.

 

[Norah63]

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)

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

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



Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! See above response.

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).

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).

What might cause 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. 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).​

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).​

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

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 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?​

"I 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).​

What we have in our present New Testament can't be everything that Christ taught. 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).​

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

​

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. 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?​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Norah63]

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.

 

[Ironhold]

He did the old testament, too!!!!!???----Correct me if I am wrong--but there is no record of him having any schooling in ancient Hebrew writings.

Once he knew things were getting real, he did a lot of studying about a lot of topics.

Near the end of his life he was even able to discuss German with native German speakers, and the King Follett Discourse has him - with nods from several German speakers - discussing differences in how English and German translations of the Bible had rendered a passage.