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

[ToBeLoved]

...which makes it even worse because the same literal reading of these verses would prohibit any scripture beyond the Pentateuch.

Seriously - this line of argument is dead in the water.

What it shows is that God is consistent and does not change. I'm not getting your logic

 

[BigDaddy4]

But if his additions are authoritative, why the need for the KJV?

Or, conversely, if they are not authoritative, why include them?

 

[fatboys]

Or, conversely, if they are not authoritative, why include them?

They are authoritive to what they are. You guys are going on about nothing

 

[drstevej]

They are authoritive to what they are.

Self-serving glosses

 

[fatboys]

Self-serving glosses

What ever. You have not only beat this to death it has been resurrected and your beating it again. Start another thread and topic.

 

[Hammster]

They are authoritive to what they are. You guys are going on about nothing

Again, if they are authoritative, why two versions? Does one supercede the other in certain cases? How do you determine which one to use?

 

[fatboys]

Again, if they are authoritative, why two versions? Does one supercede the other in certain cases? How do you determine which one to use?

You have been told many times. It is to compare the two and gain new inside

 

[Hammster]

You have been told many times. It is to compare the two and gain new inside

What new insight needs to be gained? If the JST is authoritative, that makes the KJV obsolete since it contains errors.

 

[fatboys]

What new insight needs to be gained? If the JST is authoritative, that makes the KJV obsolete since it contains errors.

Since there were only selected versus revised there is no reason to say the KJV is obsolete

 

[drstevej]

The JST tosses the entire book of the Song of Solomon.

 

[Ironhold]

It depends on what your definition of scripture is. What it is saying in Deut. is to not take away from anything or add to it in there, the Torah regarding G-ds directives; and anything following must not diminish his commands in any way. This includes from the Prophets which were spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 22:34-40.

Thing is, the argument concerning Revelation only works if one presumes that the warning is in reference to the Bible as a whole and that nothing new is to be written after this.

Trying to argue that Deuteronomy backs Revelation up on this point means a person is looking at the same mistaken interpretation, which means that there should have been nothing more written after the Pentateuch.

 

[Ironhold]

We are talking very specifically about God and religion. What do scholars and scientists have to do with anything? Just another thing you throw out there to get us off topic. It does make me pause that you do this so regularly. Talking about other types of people when we are clearly talking about those who have been chosen by God to write holy and sacred works of faith. I see a definite pattern here.

*raises unibrow*

So you're saying that "my raising examples of the same general practice through history" is somehow a distraction?

 

[Ironhold]

What it shows is that God is consistent and does not change. I'm not getting your logic

1. The usual (mis)interpretation of Revelation is: "This is it. The Bible is written. Nothing more will have the authority of scripture."

2. This (mis)interpretation relies on a mix of "lack of knowledge concerning how the Bible was written & compiled" + "an overly literal reading".

3. When exposed to the reality of what's going on, too many people respond by trying to argue Dueteronomy in Revelation's place.

4. Reading Deuteronomy as literally as reading Revelation would mean that there should be no more scripture after the books of Moses.

5. This means that Revelation is in violation of Deuteronomy for even existing.

6. Oops.

 

[mmksparbud]

1. The usual (mis)interpretation of Revelation is: "This is it. The Bible is written. Nothing more will have the authority of scripture."

2. This (mis)interpretation relies on a mix of "lack of knowledge concerning how the Bible was written & compiled" + "an overly literal reading".

3. When exposed to the reality of what's going on, too many people respond by trying to argue Dueteronomy in Revelation's place.

4. Reading Deuteronomy as literally as reading Revelation would mean that there should be no more scripture after the books of Moses.

5. This means that Revelation is in violation of Deuteronomy for even existing.

6. Oops.

This had already been addressed.'
(Act 2:17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

We do not add or diminish from His word---meaning, we do not change the already stated meaning of what has been written.
What dreams and visions God chooses to give will be in harmony with the already written Word. God does not contradict Himself, He is not the author of confusion.

 

[Hammster]

Since there were only selected versus revised there is no reason to say the KJV is obsolete

Of course there is. It's in error in many places, according to LDS. So Smith tried to fix it. He never finished, so even his translation is in error in many places. But it would still be better than the KJV, correct?

 

[fatboys]

Of course there is. It's in error in many places, according to LDS. So Smith tried to fix it. He never finished, so even his translation is in error in many places. But it would still be better than the KJV, correct?

Do you have access to the JST? Read it and then get back to me.

 

[Hammster]

Do you have access to the JST? Read it and then get back to me.

What will that accomplish?

 

[Hammster]

It turns out, the LDS do not consider it authoritative. Interesting.

 

[fatboys]

What will that accomplish?

You will be able to understand better what we are trying to tell you

 

[Hammster]

You will be able to understand better what we are trying to tell you

So reading an altered version of the bible that the LDS doesn't even consider authoritative will help me understand?

Sounds unlikely.