- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A PLAINER TRANSLATION – Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible – A History and Commentary, by Robert J. Matthews. This book isn’t in print anymore, but I got a copy many years ago, when I was first struggling (alone) with my faith transition. I think that for me, it actually helped frame my post-believer view of Joseph Smith. JS gave serious and sustained effort to his translation. The book details the effort, including the process of the translation, which evolved over time. The book isn’t light reading… it is very comprehensive. Matthews is considered to be the foremost expert on the JST, and it was his work that prompted the Church to include excerpts from the JST in the 1979 printing of the LDS edition of the Bible.
For us, the JST has been relegated to a footnote (literally), but in many ways, it stands as a testament to JS’s dedication to his calling. I found this one of the most, maybe THE most, satisfying books, on actual history, written from an LDS perspective. Used copies are available on Amazon, and probably other sites.
Does it includ js commentary about what things ment and not just the translation Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
The JST stands somewhere between the Amplified Version, which spells out meanings by adding words and phrases, and the likes of the New World Translation (JWs) and Douay/Jerusalem (RCs) which are created with particular theologies in mind. Ya I know all about what it is. I have the entire jst and have read it for the new testament so fare. But when he did this he had like a journal with him and it was his ,commentary on the bible. I wounder if this book includes this. If not you can find it in another out of print book called Joseph Smith’s commentary on the bible. It’s hard to find and I haven’t read it yet. That’s why I wounder if its in this book sense its so extensive on the jst Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
imagine, for a moment, that three dozen, randomly chosen conference talks over the past 182 years were collected into a book of scripture. could include BY’s Adam god sermon, plus king follett, maybe BKP’s little factory, and the 14 fundamentals. let’s say that these are translated into spanish. what earthly good would a “plainer translation” be, if the source material contains flaws?
does any serious scholar think that scriptures are dictated words of god?
the Bhagavad Gita says, “To one who is on the enlightened Middle Way (“buddhiyogad”), the scriptures (Veda) are about as useful as a well in the middle of a pristine, freshwater lake.”
Jesus said, “You [Pharisees] search the scriptures, thinking that they provide you eternal life, when in fact they really testify of me.” Mormons misuse this scripture: instead of commanding us to search the scriptures, it is stating a fact: those who search the scriptures are missing the living christ to which the scriptures point. While scriptures contain inspired words, they cannot contain the Word: the living Christ that is, for us, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Way is made by walking on it. Truth is real when we speak and embrace it without fear, and life is lived by fully being.
To follow-up on wayfarer’s comment, my opinion is that scriptures tell us how people from the past viewed God and his relationship to them – and not much else, when it gets right down to it. That’s really important to know, imo, but it doesn’t say much about how WE view God and his relationship to US. Absolutely, it can influence us, but I believe in an evolutionary model of understanding that includes religious understanding – that “further light and knowledge” and “ongoing revelation” are FAR superior to past pronouncements of scripture, with the exception of the words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. I think that is axiomatic to Mormonism. Thus, while I value scripture highly (from all faith traditions), I don’t really care much about spending time trying to translate them more plainly – since, in the end, I believe those translations reveal much, much more about our own worldview than they do about the worldview and intent of the original authors (whoever they actually were) and abridgers (whoever they actually were).
I am going to assume none of you are speaking to me because none of you answered my question about if Joseph smiths commentary on the bible which he wrote down while making his translation is in the particular book. If you haven’t read it it recommend it. You said basically that you value the new testament’s 4 gospels that deal with the life of Christ. Well most of the jst is in this part. I will vouch for its clearer reading as I have read it all. I’ll have to dig out my book that has it in it and take a picture of it. It is reorganized to be in chronological order and the 4 gospels are in parallel Collins. It’s kjv but it’s got the jst in it if a word is changed its got a line through it and the new word or words are next to it in bold. After reading I would now like to hear his commentary on this work also because on my mission a member read a section of his commentary to me and it was very Interesting. Keep in mind if you beleav he is a true prophet and that he dis this translation with gods help the comentery often contained his relocation on the meaning of these passages.
Fyi if u don’t know or remember the book of Moses in the pear of great price was part of the jst
Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
deepdivered, just so you know, pretty much everyone here has a really good understanding of the JST. deepdivered wrote:I am going to assume none of you are speaking to me because none of you answered my question about if Joseph smiths commentary on the bible which he wrote down while making his translation is in the particular book. If you haven’t read it it recommend it. You said basically that you value the new testament’s 4 gospels that deal with the life of Christ. Well most of the jst is in this part. I will vouch for its clearer reading as I have read it all. I’ll have to dig out my book that has it in it and take a picture of it. It is reorganized to be in chronological order and the 4 gospels are in parallel Collins. It’s kjv but it’s got the jst in it if a word is changed its got a line through it and the new word or words are next to it in bold.
After reading I would now like to hear his commentary on this work also because on my mission a member read a section of his commentary to me and it was very Interesting. Keep in mind if you beleav he is a true prophet and that he dis this translation with gods help the comentery often contained his relocation on the meaning of these passages.
Fyi if u don’t know or remember the book of Moses in the pear of great price was part of the jst
yes I was talking to you. i read the NT in greek, as per the oldest MS, and the JST is not a clearer translation, nor is it accurate. Like all of Joseph’s “translations”, it is his inspired interpretation. As for plainer, parallel version of the NT gospels, I preferJefferson’s redactionThe point I am making, and ray said it better, is that scripture is the words and experience of people who felt the spirit. none of the actul writers of the NT actually were first hand witnesses, except maybe james the just. they are no different than writers and speakers today. so what is the point of a plainer translation? will it get you closer to the truth? Jesus said not: the way is made by walking it, by doing what he did.
scriptures are like fingers pointing to the moon: if you are looking at the fingers, you won’t see the moon.
wayfarer wrote:deepdivered wrote:I am going to assume none of you are speaking to me because none of you answered my question about if Joseph smiths commentary on the bible which he wrote down while making his translation is in the particular book. If you haven’t read it it recommend it. You said basically that you value the new testament’s 4 gospels that deal with the life of Christ. Well most of the jst is in this part. I will vouch for its clearer reading as I have read it all. I’ll have to dig out my book that has it in it and take a picture of it. It is reorganized to be in chronological order and the 4 gospels are in parallel Collins. It’s kjv but it’s got the jst in it if a word is changed its got a line through it and the new word or words are next to it in bold.
After reading I would now like to hear his commentary on this work also because on my mission a member read a section of his commentary to me and it was very Interesting. Keep in mind if you beleav he is a true prophet and that he dis this translation with gods help the comentery often contained his relocation on the meaning of these passages.
Fyi if u don’t know or remember the book of Moses in the pear of great price was part of the jst
yes I was talking to you. i read the NT in greek, as per the oldest MS, and the JST is not a clearer translation, nor is it accurate. Like all of Joseph’s “translations”, it is his inspired interpretation. As for plainer, parallel version of the NT gospels, I preferJefferson’s redactionThe point I am making, and ray said it better, is that scripture is the words and experience of people who felt the spirit. none of the actul writers of the NT actually were first hand witnesses, except maybe james the just. they are no different than writers and speakers today. so what is the point of a plainer translation? will it get you closer to the truth? Jesus said not: the way is made by walking it, by doing what he did.
scriptures are like fingers pointing to the moon: if you are looking at the fingers, you won’t see the moon.
I find one flaw. In your rebuttal you are assuming that the Greek is the most accurate and that if jst is not comparable then it there for is not more accurate. It may actually be the other way around.
Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
deepdivered wrote:I find one flaw. In your rebuttal you are assuming that the Greek is the most accurate and that if jst is not comparable then it there for is not more accurate. It may actually be the other way around.
deepdivered, “rebuttal” is a debate term. we are here to stay LDS amidst faith transition. other sites are about debate. I am trying to help you understand that making a false truth claim about the nature of scripture is not helpful to those of us who are trying to stay LDS.when we realize that joseph did not “translate”, as clearly demonstrated by the book of abraham papyrus, then the terms “plainer translation” are not “accurate”. And being “not true”, such a claim contributes to faith crisis: faith is trust in something that it is true. Joseph did not read greek, the original language of the epistles and gospels, and his was not a translation at all, let alone plainer or more accurate.
if you would like to suggest that Joseph revealed gospel principles through
rewritingthe biblical texts, I would agree with you. The Book of Moses contains some of the most inspired scripture I know. They are original scripture, given through inspiriation to the mind and heart of a prophet. That is how Joseph “revealed” the book of mormon, and that is how he revealed the JST. He translated nothing. Thus, if, for example, I am interested in what the writers of biblicalnew testament texts actually wrote, I go to the greek. If I want to know what Joseph thinks (in his inspired view) what they should have written, I go to the JST. Big difference. when we understand the truth of scriptural origins, we can make better use in faith of the content.
As wayfarer said, we aren’t here to find a “one true” view of anything. We are here to discuss how each of us, individually, has come and is coming to see topics in a way that helps us reconcile issues and find peace (and, hopefully, joy) staying LDS. Those individual views can be radically different, as evidenced by how differently some of us see various things – and that’s completely fine here. I also think it’s critical for this particular topic to focus precisely on what we mean when we talk of “translation” – and to realize, as wayfarer said, that Joseph didn’t “translate” anything in the traditional sense of that word. Even when he used the word (since, I believe, it was the common wording of his day), he generally added qualifiers – like, “by the gift and power of God” or “revealed truth”.
I really love most of the writings Joseph revealed / translated – but I understand that they didn’t happen as a result of a traditional translation method. Frankly, that bolsters my acceptance of him as a “prophet, seer and revelator” – since translators are translators, while prophets, seers and revelators don’t have to be translators.
I agree with you both. I mis understood what you ment. I thought you where trying to say the jst was garbage and discrediting that as you said later was revelation to him. Now that I see you where speaking of the literal definition of the word translation then yes it’s true his work was not translation. He did have a few bibles and he stated the old one he had was in German and he felt it was more comprehensible
Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
The book in question doesn’t contain JS Commentary… I doesn’t even contain the JST. It’s mostly a history of how JS put the JST together, and what happened to it after that. It does discuss doctrinal contributions of the JST to the early Mormon movement, but that’s not the part that interested me, when I looked into it. I don’t care whether Joseph Smith saw the original Greek words inside his hat or made up his “translation” out of thin air, but the history of the JST is interesting, and this work is insightful. I found it to be a window into the mind of JS in some ways, not even so much for what the JST says, but rather for the effort the JS put into it. On Own Now wrote:The book in question doesn’t contain JS Commentary… I doesn’t even contain the JST. It’s mostly a history of how JS put the JST together, and what happened to it after that. It does discuss doctrinal contributions of the JST to the early Mormon movement, but that’s not the part that interested me, when I looked into it. I don’t care whether Joseph Smith saw the original Greek words inside his hat or made up his “translation” out of thin air, but the history of the JST is interesting, and this work is insightful. I found it to be a window into the mind of JS in some ways, not even so much for what the JST says, but rather for the effort the JS put into it.
Thanks for the answer. I want that commentary book and maybe this one also
Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.