LDS LDS: The JST ... Smith Spin & Bible Mangling

[drstevej]

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) purports to restore the original intent of the Bible via prophetic insight. Often there is no manuscript support for the JST rendering, This thread will provide a number of examples of Joseph Smith writing his views in and claiming prophet's license.

Illustration #1

John 6:44 (JST)

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.

John 6:44 (KJV)

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.

John 6:44 (Greek Text)

44 ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον καγω αναστησω αυτον εν τη εσχατη ημερα



No manuscript contains the JST additions to the text. Shameful mangling of God's Word.

 

[Hammster]

8 We believe the Bible to be the wordof God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

What Smith did cannot be considered translating.

 

[Ironhold]

Mangling?

If you start like this then it's virtually guaranteed you're only going to get hostile results.


That being said -

1. The JST isn't included in the main body of the text; rather, it's the KJV text with the JST in the footnotes and appendix so that people can compare the renderings.

2. Nobody has the original autographs of the NT works, something that people seem to forget.

3. The JST was based on revelation.

 

[drstevej]

If the JST is revelation then it supercedes and replaces the KJV in Mormonism. You can't have it both ways.

LDS Article of Faith
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...

Joseph's interpolations must be viewed by LDS as infallible corrections to the KJV and all other translations.

 

[Hammster]

Mangling?

If you start like this then it's virtually guaranteed you're only going to get hostile results.


That being said -

1. The JST isn't included in the main body of the text; rather, it's the KJV text with the JST in the footnotes and appendix so that people can compare the renderings.

2. Nobody has the original autographs of the NT works, something that people seem to forget.

3. The JST was based on revelation.

So it's not an actual translation?

 

[Ironhold]

So it's not an actual translation?

Not on the sense that Steve's been using it.

 

[Hammster]

Not on the sense that Steve's been using it.

What is the official title of it?

 

[Ironhold]

What is the official title of it?

It's known as the "Joseph Smith Translation".

 

[Hammster]

It's known as the "Joseph Smith Translation".

So is it a translation or not?

 

[fatboys]

So is it a translation or not?

Not in the sense you think. Through revelation Joseph Smith was able to clarify the translations and meanings to a more pure intent. This is what we mean by translation.

 

[drstevej]

Not in the sense you think. Through revelation Joseph Smith was able to clarify the translations and meanings to a more pure intent. This is what we mean by translation.

This mangles the meaning of the term translation. It is adjusting the text to fit your views and claiming prophetic license.
This alone should send folks running from Smith-ism.

 

[drstevej]

Revelation 2:27 (JST)
And he shall rule them with the word of God; and they shall be in his hands as the vessels of clay in the hands of a potter; and he shall govern them by faith, with equity and justice, even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 2:27 (KJV)
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 2:27 (Greek)
και ποιμανει αυτους εν ραβδω σιδηρα ως τα σκευη τα κεραμικα συντριβεται ως καγω ειληφα παρα του πατρος μου

and this changing of the text (adding and subtracting) despite this warning

Revelation 22:19
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.

 

[fatboys]

This mangles the meaning of the term translation. It is adjusting the text to fit your views and claiming prophetic license.
This alone should send folks running from Smith-ism.

If hit you feeling that has forgotten is and that ther can be no more words from God to us then you can run. It would be a mistake just as it was a mistake for the Jews to run from the gospel Christ restored.

 

[fatboys]

If hit you feeling that has forgotten is and that ther can be no more words from God to us then you can run. It would be a mistake just as it was a mistake for the Jews to run from the gospel Christ restored.

Should have read it before I posted it. If you feel that God has forgotten us and that no more words could be revealed to us then run. But I think that would be as big a mistake as those Jews who ran away from Jesus because he also taught the restored gospel b

 

[seekingsolace]

Not in the sense you think. Through revelation Joseph Smith was able to clarify the translations and meanings to a more pure intent. This is what we mean by translation.

Is it a teaching that other translations are incorrect but the Joseph Smith Translation is accurate?

Also is this view widely held in Mormon circles at the current date?

 

[Hammster]

Not in the sense you think. Through revelation Joseph Smith was able to clarify the translations and meanings to a more pure intent. This is what we mean by translation.

By adding things that were never there? By changing words? That's not a translation in any sense.

 

[drstevej]

FB< so God's speaks by revising and extending His prior remarks? The JST is unmistakable evidence that LDS is a re-furbished gospel with non-biblical add-ons.

This is not a VW...

 

[Ironhold]

This is not a VW...

Unfortunately, you're talking to someone who knows a bit about cars.

Consider this as a counter-example. I drive a 1990 Buick, which I inherited from a deceased grandmother. The engine is off of a 1987 Buick of the same model; somebody removed the factory stock engine and replaced it with this older engine, but because the car was purchased in the days before Carfax we don't know who, when, or why.

Thing is, even though the engine is a 1987, all of the other components on the car - including the chassis and body - are 1990 and so the car itself is classed as a 1990 on all of the official paperwork (including the state vehicle registration).

Similarly, your VW above would, indeed, be legally classed as a VW of its given model (at least under State of Texas guidelines). The engine and suspension may be completely different, but there's enough left of the body and everything else that's still original factory stock to qualify.

Or if we want to take an extreme example, consider the world of stock car racing. Close examination of most modern vehicles will reveal that they aren't factory stock. By the time the safety modifications and racing modifications are made, about all that's left of the original design is the frame and the body. Yet the vehicle is still referred to as the vehicle in question. You may see a qualifier attached to the name (like "Merkin Motors Slipstream Stock" as opposed to just "Merkin Motors Slipstream"), but it's still considered by and large to be the model and vintage unless there's been some radical rules change I don't know about.

 

[drstevej]

If this is a VW...

Then the JST is a translation,

 

[Ironhold]

If this is a VW...

Then the JST is a translation,

Still a VW.

Just with a different means of locomotion (assuming that those actually work).