KJV vs JST


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting find, while comparing KJV and JST

Quote

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 -- Matt 25: 29-30 KJV

Quote

29 For unto every one who hath obtained other talents, shall be given, and he shall have an abundance.

30 But from him that hath not obtained other talents, shall be taken away even that which he hath received.

 -- Matt 25: 29-30 JST

Here's an example where, I don't necessarily think that the KJV is a mistranslation.  The JST simply clarifies one point.  And I also believe the broader meaning of the KJV is also correct, but not really the point that Jesus probably wanted to get across.  And I only believe that because of the JST clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might enjoy this synopsis of a recent article. Actually, you'd probably enjoy Barlow's work more, as referenced in it.

Quote

Barlow's five categories [of changes in the JST] can be summarized briefly as follows:

1. Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source (we have defined these as belonging to Smith's revelatory intent),
2. Theological corrections,
3. Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text,
4. Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels,
5. Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You might enjoy this synopsis of a recent article. Actually, you'd probably enjoy Barlow's work more, as referenced in it.

I'm going to guess this will belong in either Cat 2 or Cat 3.  What do you think?  And is the KJV text adequate as it is (in your opinion)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find more interesting is the clarification on the "talents" that the Lord was talking about.  These are not things such as the knowledge of the world (learning to play an instrument, earning more money, getting a Ph.D in History, etc...etc...ect) but things involving becoming more like the Lord in our actions.  After the parable in Matt 25 it says the following...

Quote

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

it indicates that these "talents" are not talents as per the world, but talents that relate to the Kingdom of our Lord.  At least in MY opinion currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2018 at 4:38 PM, Carborendum said:

I'm going to guess this will belong in either Cat 2 or Cat 3.  What do you think?  And is the KJV text adequate as it is (in your opinion)?

I think the same, leaning more towards 3 but leaving myself open to 2. I don't think the KJV is adequate when there are Calvinist notions of predestination floating around (those whom God has already chosen will be given while those who are not chosen will be taken away from). And it gets especially uncomfortable once you restore the doctrine of pre-mortal life (those who were valiant are the only ones who will be improved upon now and eternally, while those less-valiant ones get the short end of the stick).

 

I've got another one for you. Do a search for "heart of David" and you'll see two verses talking about how Solomon and Jeroboam hearts "was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father." In one verse the JST corrects it to read "and it became as the heart of David his father," while in the other it's corrected to "as the Lord commanded David his father." In both cases David's heart is no longer perfect with the Lord, and is not to be emulated.

I suspect this is a variation on the theological correction - that is, the revision is theologically driven but is not an originalist's translation or correction. I think the original point was to hold up David as the example for monotheism, and thus it was emphasized that his heart was perfect with the Lord. In telling the story to a modern monotheistic audience (and a Christian one at that), worship of the one true God doesn't need the same level of focus but the importance of chastity and fidelity instead fills the void. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I think the same, leaning more towards 3 but leaving myself open to 2. I don't think the KJV is adequate when there are Calvinist notions of predestination floating around (those whom God has already chosen will be given while those who are not chosen will be taken away from). And it gets especially uncomfortable once you restore the doctrine of pre-mortal life (those who were valiant are the only ones who will be improved upon now and eternally, while those less-valiant ones get the short end of the stick).

With regard to the Isaiah verses:

We see the obvious meaning from the JST.  And we can interpret the KJV as "intending" to mean the same thing. 

But there is another interpretation of the KJV.  If we take it literally, then "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" is a viable interpretation.  What if the dual meaning was intended by the Savior?

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I've got another one for you. Do a search for "heart of David" and you'll see two verses talking about how Solomon and Jeroboam hearts "was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father." In one verse the JST corrects it to read "and it became as the heart of David his father," while in the other it's corrected to "as the Lord commanded David his father." In both cases David's heart is no longer perfect with the Lord, and is not to be emulated.

I suspect this is a variation on the theological correction - that is, the revision is theologically driven but is not an originalist's translation or correction. I think the original point was to hold up David as the example for monotheism, and thus it was emphasized that his heart was perfect with the Lord. In telling the story to a modern monotheistic audience (and a Christian one at that), worship of the one true God doesn't need the same level of focus but the importance of chastity and fidelity instead fills the void. 

That is certainly a change that makes a significant difference -- similar to the humble man not being forgiven.  But that can be a matter of punctuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dogwater said:

Are you familiar with the BYU report that the JST is largely based on Adam Clarke's Bible commentary?

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

 

Oh I see it was linked above already. Oops.

 

You can also view the commentary online. You can see it doesn't have any bearing on the verses cited in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/22/2018 at 4:35 PM, Carborendum said:

Interesting find, while comparing KJV and JST

Here's an example where, I don't necessarily think that the KJV is a mistranslation.  The JST simply clarifies one point.  And I also believe the broader meaning of the KJV is also correct, but not really the point that Jesus probably wanted to get across.  And I only believe that because of the JST clarification.

Joseph Smith essentially took it upon himself to delete verse 30? 

Doesn't look like a translation error to me.  

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25-30.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

Joseph Smith essentially took it upon himself to delete verse 30? 

Doesn't look like a translation error to me.  

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25-30.htm

No he didn't.  It was simply renumbered.  A formatting thing.  Nothing more.  Remember all formating of chapters and verses are a convention to help us reference things.  They were never part of the original text.

And I specifically said it wasn't a translation error but a clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No he didn't.  It was simply renumbered.  A formatting thing.  Nothing more.  Remember all formating of chapters and verses are a convention to help us reference things.  They were never part of the original text.

And I specifically said it wasn't a translation error but a clarification.

You're right about the renumbering - sorry but it took me awhile to actually find the JST version online to check, but I suppose I should have waited and found the answer.

I also agree that you weren't suggesting it was a translation error and was merely confirming that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

You're right about the renumbering - sorry but it took me awhile to actually find the JST version online to check, but I suppose I should have waited and found the answer.

I also agree that you weren't suggesting it was a translation error and was merely confirming that.

I'll repeat a quote that Mordorbund posted higher up on this page.

Quote

Barlow's five categories [of changes in the JST] can be summarized briefly as follows:

1. Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source (we have defined these as belonging to Smith's revelatory intent),
2. Theological corrections,
3. Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text,
4. Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels,
5. Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.

I think your offense would be greater when speaking of items which fit in categories # 1 and #2.

Find those and we can really have a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 4:24  (KJV) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:26 (JST) For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm

Here Joseph Smith changes the words of Jesus and tells us something entirely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

John 4:24  (KJV) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:26 (JST) For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm

Here Joseph Smith changes the words of Jesus and tells us something entirely different.

Not at all. 

John 4 has always been about teaching that we are to be revert to God with our spirits and that He reaches us through our spirits.  That message is the same in both, though more clarified in the JST.

John 4 was never about making a statement "God is only a being of spirit" as it is commonly misinterpreted by Creedal Christians, and it make zero sense for Jesus (of all people!) to teach "god is only a being of spirit" when He, the divine, is standing in the flesh.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not at all. 

John 4 has always been about teaching that we are to be revert to God with our spirits and that He reaches us through our spirits.  That message is the same in both, though more clarified in the JST.

John 4 was never about making a statement "God is only a being of spirit" as it is commonly misinterpreted by Creedal Christians, and it make zero sense for Jesus (of all people!) to teach "god is only a being of spirit" when He, the divine, is standing in the flesh.  

Jesus doesn't say that "God is only a being of spirit".  He says "God is a Spirit". 

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm

Actually what he says is shown in the interlinear version; an attempt to translate the first three words of the greek in that verse: "Spirit - God [is]".  Really not far from just "God is a Spirit".  There's no greek word for "promised" in that sentence or anything like the phrase "For unto such hath God Promised his Spirit".

It's a big change: evidently what Jesus says doesn't fit with Joseph's theology, so Joseph erases the words of Jesus and inserts his own?

 

Edited by Klaymen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

Jesus doesn't say that "God is only a being of spirit".  He says "God is a Spirit". 

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm

Actually what he says is shown in the interlinear version; an attempt to translate the first three words of the greek in that verse: "Spirit - God [is]".  Really not far from just "God is a Spirit".  There's no greek word for "promised" in that sentence or anything like it.

My point still stands.

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

It's a big change: evidently what Jesus says doesn't fit with Joseph's theology, so Joseph erases the words of Jesus and inserts his own?

 

Speaking LDS persecutive here:

God Himself is clarifying His word that is SO commonly misunderstood by Creedal Christianity.  Joseph Smith is serving as the scribe for this revelation, because He was God's mouthpiece at the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

My point still stands.

Speaking LDS persecutive here:

God Himself is clarifying His word that is SO commonly misunderstood by Creedal Christianity.  Joseph Smith is serving as the scribe for this revelation, because He was God's mouthpiece at the time.  

So what you and JS are saying is that Jesus was wrong?  The one who atoned for us had his facts about God confused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

John 4:24  (KJV) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:26 (JST) For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm

Here Joseph Smith changes the words of Jesus and tells us something entirely different.

And that would fit into Item #2, as I said.

But to us, he did not change Jesus' words.  Previous transcribers and interpreters did.  Joseph changed it back.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Joseph Smith is serving as the scribe for this revelation, because He was God's mouthpiece at the time.  

And how do we know this by the way?  A man who smoke, drank, married other peoples' wives, translated funerary documents, took interest in the Kinderhook plates, and ended his life in a gunfight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

And how do we know this by the way?  A man who smoke, drank, married other peoples' wives, translated funerary documents, took interest in the Kinderhook plates, and ended his life in a gunfight?

Yes.  Exactly.  (Kidding.)

WE know this because the Spirit of God has told us so.  The message is not so dependent upon the messenger as the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.  If any prophet had to be perfect, then we'd be waiting forever for prophets.

If you're not perfect, can you still receive the gifts of the Spirit?  Revelation?  Witness miracles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes.  Exactly.  (Kidding.)

WE know this because the Spirit of God has told us so.  The message is not so dependent upon the messenger as the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.  If any prophet had to be perfect, then we'd be waiting forever for prophets.

If you're not perfect, can you still receive the gifts of the Spirit?  Revelation?  Witness miracles?

Yes but MANY MORE OTHERS know otherwise because the Spirit of God has told them so. 

No, you do not have to be perfect to receive the gifts of the Spirit or Revelation.  Otherwise Jesus would have been the only such person.  But the true story behind the book of Abraham has to put severe doubt on the credibility of Joseph Smith's writings.

Edited by Klaymen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

"Spirit - God [is]".  Really not far from just "God is a Spirit".  There's no greek word for "promised" in that sentence or anything like the phrase "For unto such hath God Promised his Spirit".

It's a big change: evidently what Jesus says doesn't fit with Joseph's theology, so Joseph erases the words of Jesus and inserts his own?

1)  How do you know that it was Joseph who erased Christ's words and not a previous transcriber, and that Joseph instead corrected them to what was originally said?

2)  'Spirit - God [is]' is a huge difference from the mainstream interpretation of the phrase, 'God is a Spirit'.  Regardless, even maintaining the KJV translation does not indicate what most Christians interpret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Yes but MANY MORE OTHERS know otherwise because the Spirit of God has told them so. 

Okay so then either God is a prankster and none of this really matters; one group of people is lying; or one group of people is misunderstanding the communications of the Holy Spirit. Take your pick and there will still be no evidence to support or reject either claim.

9 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

But the true story behind the book of Abraham has to put severe doubt on the credibility of Joseph Smith's writings.

Like everything else, that is debatable.

The only way to get to the truth is personal revelation from God.  I can't know the truth for you, and you can't know it for me.  I will say this though, in my not so humble opinion, if Joseph Smith's claims are false and the Book of Mormon is not truly the Word of God, then there is equal reason for me to also reject the Bible.

Was Judaism not at one point the complete and true religion made known to mankind?  Then we got the new testament and the associated prophets and apostles.  The Jews rejected that.  I see no reason to believe it unusual that the New Testament would be expounded upon via another testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

1)  How do you know that it was Joseph who erased Christ's words and not a previous transcriber, and that Joseph instead corrected them to what was originally said?

2)  'Spirit - God [is]' is a huge difference from the mainstream interpretation of the phrase, 'God is a Spirit'.  Regardless, even maintaining the KJV translation does not indicate what most Christians interpret.

1) How do you know that Joseph corrected them to what was originally said?  Which is more likely, that they were already correct, or someone who claimed to translate a papyrus to a story about Abrham was in fact using Eqyptian funerary texts that had nothing to do with the subject?

2) I respectfully disagree with you opinion that the wording is hugely difference.  It is miniscule compared with the JST.  So, how do most Christians interpret that verse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share