- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Did anyone see this? Cnsl1 wrote:
Did anyone see this?Not until now. I have always seen the JST as more of a commentary and clarification than a “translation” in the sense of the BOM & POGP. Though some bits are heavily reworked, but others – quite large pieces of the Bible – are left alone.
My cynical side would like to remind you that the RLDS/COC owns the JST which is probably why we hardly use it in our denomination.
Thanks for sharing. I also didn’t see it before now. I’m with Sam on this one. I remember growing up my TBM mother told me we don’t use the JS Translation, because the RLDS Church owns it and probably made changes to support their views. What I find interesting, is that JS “corrected” certain bible passages, that were also quoted in the BOM using the original JKV translation. Hence, if the bible needed correcting, the BOM needs it too. dande48 wrote:
I remember growing up my TBM mother told me we don’t use the JS Translation, because the RLDS Church owns it and probably made changes to support their views. What I find interesting, is that JS “corrected” certain bible passages, that were also quoted in the BOM using the original JKV translation. Hence, if the bible needed correcting, the BOM needs it too.I did see something that said the RLDS DID own the JST, but that has expired. That probably at least played a part in why the Brighamite church stayed/stays away. But the more I dove down into it the more this goes into the “makes no sense” pile, which is quite big. Even before my faith crisis I had a hard time with the BOM being “the most correct book”, then some of the KJV showing up word for word in the BOM, THEN the JST changed those same verses.
:crazy: With the latest finding that it seems like the JST may have been “inspired” by another bible commentary from his time just moves it solidly into that pile – enough that I don’t need to even think of re-investigating that one..Very interesting. This is perhaps another confirmation that JS was willing to use and incorporate many available sources in his restoration work. I once had a JST from the 1960’s and one from 2000’s. The earlier one began with quotes from early church fathers like Origen of Alexandria on the errors and omissions in the bible text. This was to establish a need for a revelatory correction or “restoration” of the text. The JST from the 2000’s began with an essay from the RLDS church historian that suggested that the JST was less of a restoration of lost knowledge and more of an inspired commentary to the KJV version of the bible. It certainly appeared that the RLDS church no longer hold the JST out to be canonical.
That’s news to me, but I’d say that is major admission. I may have to get in touch with the authors! I’ve thought the church was wanting to look like other respectable christian churches and believe in the KJV as it is, and believing there is more in addition to it. But, maybe we’ll be better liked if we share bible beliefs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.