LDS Smithing God's Word

[drstevej]

Greek: John 6:44

44 οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεiν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

KJV: John 6:44

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

JST: John 6:44

No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just.

============

Another text mangled by Joseph to fit his preference. This is not a prophetic rendering, it is a pathetic rendering (linguistically).

 

[A_Thinker]

Greek: John 6:44

44 οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεiν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

KJV: John 6:44

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

JST: John 6:44

No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just.

============

Another text mangled by Joseph to fit his preference. This is not a prophetic rendering, it is a pathetic rendering (linguistically).

How ... is this not evident to his followers ?

It's just a "kinked" mishmash of KJV text ...

 

[Dave-W]

What is "JST?"

Never heard of it.

 

[Jane_Doe]

How ... is this not evident to his followers ?

It's just a "kinked" mishmash of KJV text ...

Note: LDS don't consider the JST to be a translation of the Bible in the traditional way you think of a translation. The OP here isn't a valid question.

 

[Anto9us]

Joseph Smith Translation

 

[Jane_Doe]

What is "JST?"

Never heard of it.

Useful link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation

It's more or less a commentary on the Bible, not translation in the traditional sense, and does not in anyway replace the Bible in LDS use (LDS use the KJV, word for word. These commentaries are literally footnotes).

 

[drstevej]

JST = Joseph Smyth Translation

Note: LDS don't consider the JST to be a translation of the Bible in the traditional way you think of a translation. The OP here isn't a valid question.

If you can define a word to mean anything you want then language becomes subjective mumbling.

Smith CHANGED God's Word and claimed Prophet's rights to do so.
I say that is shameful blasphemy.

 

[Dave-W]

Useful link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation

Ah - thank you. I had not heard of it before.

BTW I have read Smith's testimony and the Book of Mormon. (the real one, not the stage play)

 

[Anto9us]

What do you mean, Jane? Was it translated in the normal way, or one of the "rock in the hat" jobs?
Is it considered a paraphrase? A commentary? What was its purpose? JS seemed steeped in KJV anyway. BOM is full of straight KJV verbatim, in KJV English language rather than an American in early 1800's. Why was a JSV produced?

 

[Anto9us]

ok, I read the link

 

[Jane_Doe]

What do you mean, Jane? Was it translated in the normal way, or one of the "rock in the hat" jobs?
Is it considered a paraphrase? A commentary? What was its purpose? JS seemed steeped in KJV anyway. BOM is full of straight KJV verbatim, in KJV English language rather than an American in early 1800's. Why was a JSV produced?

Again: Useful link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation

It's more or less a commentary on the Bible, not translation in the traditional sense, and does not in anyway replace the Bible in LDS use (LDS use the KJV, word for word. These commentaries are literally footnotes).

 

[A_Thinker]

Ah - thank you. I had not heard of it before.

BTW I have read Smith's testimony and the Book of Mormon. (the real one, not the stage play)

You have read the entire Book of Mormon ?

What was your impression ?

 

[Dave-W]

You have read the entire Book of Mormon ?
What was your impression ?

Yes. It was back when I was in highschool.

It was a fascinating read, but did not strike me as anything more than a good western book of fiction.

 

[dzheremi]

It's odd; Mormon 'translations' never seem to be actual translations of things.

That's right: they couldn't even get their own book right. It's not terribly surprising, then, that their prophet mangled the Bible so badly. The Bible, after all, actually existed before Joseph Smith made up his 'translation' of it, so there is in that case an actual standard to be held to regarding whether or not someone has made an actual translation of it or not.

That's not to give credence to this whole "it's commentary" non-explanation, either. If it's actually meant to be commentary, then it makes no sense to call it a translation, as they're not synonyms. As it is, it seems that JS tried to do a 'translation' which was found to be full of nonsense when what he came up with was checked against actual translations and manuscripts, and only then was it presented as something other than what it had been intended to be. See here as well JS and Co.'s 'Egyptian Grammar', the 'anti-banking' bank, fornication as 'plural marriage', a mishmash of old anti-Christ heresies as 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints', etc. Everything is its opposite, so if you come up with objections like the one you have in the OP, it can just be non-answered by changing the definition of commonly-accepted words to the one that only Mormons use, and then your objection is supposedly dealt with.

Strange, huh?

 

[Anto9us]

Did you catch that, in "Brother Jake's" nonsense -- that Abraham was almost sacrificed by his evil father to an Egyptian god - and a picture of supposedly Abraham about to be stabbed by his father on the altar -- uh -- doncha think someone is mixing up the REAL story about Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac?

Holy Salamander, Batman!
The Joker's tryin' to put one over on us!

 

[drstevej]

Again: Useful link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation

It's more or less a commentary on the Bible, not translation in the traditional sense, and does not in anyway replace the Bible in LDS use (LDS use the KJV, word for word. These commentaries are literally footnotes).

I seem to recall LDS in the forum saying it was a Prophetic Translation and not just a commentary. Which is it?

 

[Jane_Doe]

It's odd; Mormon 'translations' never seem to be actual translations of things.

That's right: they couldn't even get their own book right. It's not terribly surprising, then, that their prophet mangled the Bible so badly. The Bible, after all, actually existed before Joseph Smith made up his 'translation' of it, so there is in that case an actual standard to be held to regarding whether or not someone has made an actual translation of it or not.

That's not to give credence to this whole "it's commentary" non-explanation, either. If it's actually meant to be commentary, then it makes no sense to call it a translation, as they're not synonyms. As it is, it seems that JS tried to do a 'translation' which was found to be full of nonsense when what he came up with was checked against actual translations and manuscripts, and only then was it presented as something other than what it had been intended to be. See here as well JS and Co.'s 'Egyptian Grammar', the 'anti-banking' bank, fornication as 'plural marriage', a mishmash of old anti-Christ heresies as 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints', etc. Everything is its opposite, so if you come up with objections like the one you have in the OP, it can just be non-answered by changing the definition of commonly-accepted words to the one that only Mormons use, and then your objection is supposedly dealt with.

Strange, huh?

This is a gross misrepresentation of actual LDS position.

 

[dzheremi]

Isn't everything?

 

[Anto9us]

But of course! Don't you know, dzheremi, that anything a Nicene Christian posts about Mormonism is a MISREPRESENTATION of Mormonism? If I say "The Joseph Smith Translation is not really a translation" I am just bashing Mormonism. If I say "The Joseph Smith Translation a prophetic translation" I am misrepresenting LDS.

 

[dzheremi]

This is true, so far as I have experienced this website. There has never been more misrepresentation and/or bashing of Mormonism than when a non-Mormon has made anything other than laudatory comments about Mormons, Joseph Smith in particular, or the Mormon religion. People can't simply disagreem with justification (i.e., the "translations" produced by Mormons not being actual translations); they have to be misrepresenting things -- grossly, too.