KJV vs JST

[person0]

Just now, Klaymen said:

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?

You need separate your claims there.  There are plenty of members of the Church who accept the Book of Mormon and yet reject the Book of Abraham.  Now, they are wrong, but that is beside the point, the point is that your statement is a fallacious use of a straw man argument.  Is it more likely that Moses parted the read sea or that the Jews were never actually in captivity in Egypt?  Is it more likely that Jesus walked on water, or that he was a wine bibber?  Anyone can do that.

6 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

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?

Most mainstream Christians I am aware of interpret the passage to mean that God the Father does not have a physical body, and use that passage specifically to attempt to refute the Restored Gospel's claim that God is a Man with both a body and a Spirit.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

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

Yes, and our eternal destiny will be the final results of what spirit we are listening to.

I have no problem if you have felt the Spirit tell you that Joseph is not a prophet.  That doesn't change the fact that I have felt the Spirit tell me that he was.  So, I know you're wrong.  You know that I'm wrong. And we go about our day.

Are you married?  Have you and your wife ever had a disagreement?  Have you prayed and gotten different answers?  If you've never had that happen, then count your blessings.  But most people admit that there have always been some points that they disagreed and got different answers from God.

Consider that when we're supposed to treat each other like brothers and sisters as children of God.

Quote

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

And how do you know the true story?  Were you there?  No?  Do we even have the original documents to prove anything?  No?  It's all hearsay.  But you've bought into it so much that you don't even question the idea that it is "the true story."

The only truth about these things is what the Spirit of God tells us.  And he has told us.

What have you heard the Spirit tell you.  Not your study materials, not your preacher, not other men.  The Spirit?

Take a look at your previous statement about the word "promised".

58 minutes 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 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?

When Jesus spoke those words, was He speaking Greek?  No?  So, even the words of the Apostle who wrote them were limited because of the language he was using.  He COULDN'T write what Jesus actually said because the word wasn't available.  So, even words from one whom we both consider an apostle of God, wrote something incomplete (and could be taken as erroneous) because he was limited by his language he was using at the time.  Not because he was a false prophet.  Not because he was not inspired.  But because he was a mortal using a mortal tongue.

People tend to believe there is only one way to translate something because the dictionary says so.  How many times have people on this very board had debates that really boiled down to that.  No, translation is much more involved than that, especially when trying to translate into foreign languages such things that are so esoteric as the precise nature of God.

I've done my share of translating between several different languages.  And I know how some words take an entire sentence to describe in another language.  And if you're going to be concise, you have to give up accuracy for the underlying meaning.  Things get lost in the translation. 

But you didn't really consult the Spirit about this, just as you did not consult the Spirit about all the posts you've questioned thus far.  You immediately began with the premise that "those Mormons got something wrong and I'm going to show them."  How's that worked out for you so far? 

Truthfully, though,  the fact that you've admitted your mistakes sets you apart from so many others that come by here.  That's why I still like you even though we disagree.

Now, I'll offer you a different translation that may explain a difference in translation.  How about

Quote

God is spiritual.

In Korean, there is no word for "spirit".  The word often used is "mind".  And the word for "spiritual" is only an approximation.  And the difference between the noun and adjective is very slight.  In Korean the literal translation of "God is spirit" would be something like "God is the mind."

So, it would be easy to interpret that to mean  that God is "only in our minds".  Or we could believe,"We understand God by scholarly pursuits alone."

I don't believe either of those.  But that would be very easy to believe if we trusted only one phrase without understanding the bigger picture.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[Klaymen]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

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.

Yes but there are numerous prophecies and symbolism in the Old Testament that foreshadow the New Testament.  Abraham offers to use his son Isaac as a sacrifice, God intervenes and provides a ram - and refuses to withhold his own Son from us.  Isaiah 53, and passages to numerous to mention.  There is going to be a Messiah to save us from our sins.  He shows up, has his ministry, is crucified, tells us "It is finished", and rises again and appears to many.  And also says that he will be rejected by many.

I don't see any foreshadowing in either the old or new testament to any sort of Joseph Smith restoration era, although I'm sure collectively we will have little trouble arguing for and against one.  The New Testament was a fulfillment of the Old Testament.  

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

I don't see any foreshadowing in either the old or new testament to any sort of Joseph Smith restoration era, although I'm sure collectively we will have little trouble arguing for and against one.  The New Testament was a fulfillment of the Old Testament. 

On the one hand, yes there is.

On the other hand, why does there need to be?  Just because God spoke one word, does He now have a gag order preventing Him from speaking more?

[person0]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

Yes but there are numerous prophecies and symbolism in the Old Testament that foreshadow the New Testament.

So why haven't all the Jews converted to Christianity?  Oh, right! Because they don't buy it as anything more than a coincidence, and in some cases in intentional deceitful attempt by the devil to veer people away from God's truth.  Hmm sounds a lot like how you view the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

We could go back and forth on this stuff all day.  It is a fruitless endeavor.  It is safe to assume that almost every faithful member of the Church has at some point opened their mind to the consideration that the Restored Gospel could be false, and then come out on the other end with a stronger faith and testimony that it is true.  On the other hand, how many traditional Christians have opened their minds to the possibility that there is more information and truth to be had beyond only the teachings and traditional interpretations of the Bible.  As a percentage I feel confident in suggesting that it is much, much smaller.

[Klaymen]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do we even have the original documents to prove anything?  No?  It's all hearsay.  But you've bought into it so much that you don't even question the idea that it is "the true story."

The only truth about these things is what the Spirit of God tells us.  And he has told us.

We have fragments of the original papyrus sufficient for a curator to say "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes' study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture.  God didn't just give us his Spirit to dismiss the evidence in front of us.   Quick to accept anything Joseph Smith says, quick to reject anything bad about him.  

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In Korean, there is no word for "spirit".  The word often used is "mind".  And the word for "spiritual" is only an approximation.  And the difference between the noun and adjective is very slight.  In Korean the literal translation of "God is spirit" would be something like "God is the mind."

So, it would be easy to interpret that to mean  that God is "only in our minds".  Or we could believe,"We understand God by scholarly pursuits alone."

I don't believe either of those.  But that would be very easy to believe if we trusted only one phrase without understanding the bigger picture.

But in greek there are separate words for spirit (pneuma), soul (psyche), and body (soma) and the word in John is pneuma (spirit).

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/5-23.htm

People often confuse the spirit with the soul (mind/will/intellect) but they are two things entirely. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

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

Not to put too fine a point on this, Klaymen, but you don't know what you're talking about. Your idea of what constitutes "a Spirit" is so far off base that you literally don't understand what the words even mean. You are a man who is blind from birth discussing the difference between maroon and scarlet.

Yes, God is a Spirit. News flash: So are you. So am I. To worship God fully, we must put off our natural man and worship God in spirit, just as he is Spirit. You do not understand this because you are not enlightened by the Spirit of God. I don't condemn or even blame you for this, but I do invite you to keep your criticisms to yourself until and unless you actually understand what you're talking about.

This particular subforum is dedicated to discussion of LDS doctrine. Honest inquiry certainly qualifies. Anti-Mormon bullcrap masquerading as "inquiry" does not count as discussion.

I am not a moderator, so my words carry no weight. But my opinion is that if you're looking to find fault with Joseph Smith's work, please go elsewhere. There are any number of other LDS-oriented web sites where your views will be welcomed or even lionized. This is not one of those sites.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

We have fragments of the original papyrus sufficient for a curator to say "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end.

We don't have the whole set -- nowhere near.  We have no way of knowing which papers Joseph translated.  Pages in older documents even in English did not necessarily get placed right next to the text which referenced them.

Quote

But in greek there are separate words for spirit (pneuma), soul (psyche), and body (soma) and the word in John is pneuma (spirit).

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/5-23.htm

People often confuse the spirit with the soul (mind/will/intellect) but they are two things entirely. 

And I noticed you didn't address the word "Promise" which was what I addressed earlier.  First, understand the lesson of that portion of my post.  Then we can move on to this portion.

...

Now, the thing about spirit: I was not saying that "spirit" is necessarily an incorrect translation.  I'm not saying it was correct either.  The point I made when I referred to the Korean was that in translating languages, some words that are considered the "correct" translation are sometimes not the correct word to use.  Sometimes, it is because the "correct" translation really doesn't exist.

The reason I believe you didn't get what I said was that you referred to the literal word for word translation of four words.  My point was that even if he used the "accepted" word, it may not be correctly describing the reality -- especially when speaking of more esoteric things.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

And how do we know this by the way?

The same way we know Jesus is the Son of God, or the Truthfulness of any other scripture: get down on your knees, ask God, and listen for His answer.  He testifies of Truth.  

We are ultimately disciples of Christ, not Moses/Paul/Peter/Ezekiel/Joseph Smith/etc.  It is Christ's church to which we belong and from God we receive testimony of Truth. 

57 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

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

That's between them and God.  I cannot ethically turn away from my witness given from God because of any man's words.  If I were to do such a thing, that would make me a worshiper of that man and no longer a Christian (aka a disciple of Christ).

[Klaymen]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not to put too fine a point on this, Klaymen, but you don't know what you're talking about. Your idea of what constitutes "a Spirit" is so far off base that you literally don't understand what the words even mean. You are a man who is blind from birth discussing the difference between maroon and scarlet.

Yes, God is a Spirit. News flash: So are you. So am I. To worship God fully, we must put off our natural man and worship God in spirit, just as he is Spirit. You do not understand this because you are not enlightened by the Spirit of God. I don't condemn or even blame you for this, but I do invite you to keep your criticisms to yourself until and unless you actually understand what you're talking about.

This particular subforum is dedicated to discussion of LDS doctrine. Honest inquiry certainly qualifies. Anti-Mormon bullcrap masquerading as "inquiry" does not count as discussion.

I am not a moderator, so my words carry no weight. But my opinion is that if you're looking to find fault with Joseph Smith's work, please go elsewhere. There are any number of other LDS-oriented web sites where your views will be welcomed or even lionized. This is not one of those sites.

This is a thread discussing the differences between the KJV and JST, so I brought up an example.  I am also presenting factual information about Joseph Smith but I am not attacking the posters themselves, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.  You also had an amazing hissy-fit when someone else wished to speculate about the Holy Spirit.  Why should be not consult with each other about these things.  You seem very closed minded and intolerant of other people's opinions.  While I highly doubt the idea that JS actually correcting some of Jesus words that could have been misplaced by another author, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and it helps me understand where the LDS people are coming from.   

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

I am also presenting factual information about Joseph Smith

Still believe that, do you?

Quote

You seem very closed minded and intolerant of other people's opinions.

Well, I'm beginning to wonder whether that describes you as well.

For instance, could you answer my question about you being married and coming to different conclusions than your wife.  I'm really curious.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[Klaymen]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We don't have the whole set.  We have no way of knowing which papers Joseph translated.  Pages in older documents even in English did not necessarily get placed right next to the text which referenced them.

And I noticed you didn't address the word "Promise" which was what I addressed earlier.  First, understand the lesson of that portion of my post.  Then we can move on to this portion.

...

Now, the thing about spirit: I was not saying that "spirit" is necessarily an incorrect translation.  I'm not saying it was correct either.  The point I made when I referred to the Korean was that in translating languages, some words that are considered the "correct" translation are sometimes not the correct word to use.  Sometimes, it is because the "correct" translation really doesn't exist.

The reason I believe you didn't get what I said was that you referred to the literal word for word translation of four words.  My point was that even if he used the "accepted" word, it may not be correctly describing the reality -- especially when speaking of more esoteric things.

I understood your Korean explanation but still felt it was worthwhile pointing out that specific greek words were available to clarify. 

I didn't address the word "promise" because I think I understood what you said.  Incidentally it is easy to find a greek word for promise (epangelias) which suggests that the author probably would not have struggled that much using greek to correctly differentiate "is a spirit" from "promised a spirit".  

[Klaymen]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Still believe that, do you?

Well, I'm beginning to wonder whether that describes you as well.

For instance, could you answer my question about you being married and coming to different conclusions than your wife.  I'm really curious.

If you like I could present more "evidence" about these "facts" about Joseph Smith on this board.  Is that what you want?

I do work for a living, I don't answer every single question put in front of me.  I am married and yes I come to different conclusions than my wife on some things.  Some things are discerned by the spirit, but many other things we have to figure out with our minds.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

This is a thread discussing the differences between the KJV and JST, so I brought up an example. 

Not really, but I can understand how someone who is not a member of the Church would think so.

Here's the description of the "LDS Gospel Discussion" subforum: "Discuss LDS teachings. Ask questions about LDS theology or doctrine."

Here's a link to the forum rules: Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

IMO, you're pushing hard against the limits and personally, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you'd bother with any of this.

[anatess2]

Just now, Klaymen said:

If you like I could present more "evidence" about these "facts" about Joseph Smith on this board.  Is that what you want?

Hi Klaymen, you're new here so I'll give you an old-timer tip... it's really silly for non-LDS to teach "facts" about Joseph Smith to LDS... especially one such as @Carborendum who is a devout, diligent, intelligent LDS.  It would be like a Filipino like me teaching General Mattis about the US Military.  Know what I'm saying? 

[Klaymen]

16 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The same way we know Jesus is the Son of God, or the Truthfulness of any other scripture: get down on your knees, ask God, and listen for His answer.  He testifies of Truth.  

We are ultimately disciples of Christ, not Moses/Paul/Peter/Ezekiel/Joseph Smith/etc.  It is Christ's church to which we belong and from God we receive testimony of Truth. 

That's between them and God.  I cannot ethically turn away from my witness given from God because of any man's words.  If I were to do such a thing, that would make me a worshiper of that man and no longer a Christian (aka a disciple of Christ).

Understood.  But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.  

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

Understood.  But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.  

That's why the LDS has this in their Articles of Faith:

 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We don't want to doubt one's sincerity when they claim to be led by the Holy Spirit (my Holy Spirit is better than your Holy Spirit is a stupid argument).  We simply acknowledge that God knows each and everyone of us and what revelations each person is ready to receive.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

This is a thread discussing the differences between the KJV and JST, so I brought up an example.  I am also presenting factual information about Joseph Smith but I am not attacking the posters themselves, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.  You also had an amazing hissy-fit when someone else wished to speculate about the Holy Spirit.  Why should be not consult with each other about these things.  You seem very closed minded and intolerant of other people's opinions.  While I highly doubt the idea that JS actually correcting some of Jesus words that could have been misplaced by another author, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and it helps me understand where the LDS people are coming from.   

I'm not endorsing any personal attacks on here, they are wrong.

But to talk about points of subject matter (writing from the LDS perspective here, and I'm going to be forward here):  @Klaymen Creedal Christianity is very heavily influenced by Greek philosophy in it's understanding of things, particularly the works of Plato.   Christ's words were never meant to be viewed through the lens of a pagan philosopher, but Creedal Christianity incorporated this very such error into it's core through the Creeds.  this verse in particular was used to justify apostate ideas.

Hence when a person who comes from a Creedal background reads these words, the inherently misunderstand what is meant here.  It's not that person's fault, but it is extremely difficult for such a person to sort out what is of God and what is of Plato when all they have to go off of is Creedal documents.  Hence why God, being ever loving, continues to guide and clarify our understanding here.  So we don't have to play these games that all involve looking to men for Truth (translation games/ interpretations games/ history games/ etc).  Instead we remember that God is our King and ask Him "how does a person best understand your words here?"

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Understood.  But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.  

God is the legitimate proof.  

What better than proof do you want that God Himself telling you?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

I understood your Korean explanation but still felt it was worthwhile pointing out that specific greek words were available to clarify. 

I didn't address the word "promise" because I think I understood what you said.  Incidentally it is easy to find a greek word for promise (epangelias) which suggests that the author probably would not have struggled that much using greek to correctly differentiate "is a spirit" from "promised a spirit".  

Then you REALLY didn't understand what I said.

First, I am not an expert in Greek.  I was going off of your words earlier when you said,"There is no Greek word for "promise"".  I failed to read the words after "In this sentence."  My bad.

But the fact is that my overall point still addressed the point you were trying to make.  Men are limited by mortal tongues.  And translating any esoteric words are extremely difficult to ensure infallibility.  And translating from ancient languages to modern are even more so.

Like I said, I wasn't saying it was correct or incorrect as a literal word for word translation.  But I don't think you fully appreciate the difficulty in really translating a message when you're only hung up on individual words.  Just look at Google Translate.  Word for word, yes, fine.  But any sentence and you're on your own buddy.

You say you understood it, but you still didn't understand this much?

What exactly is your linguistic training anyway? Not an accusation or challenge.  Just curious.

15 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

If you like I could present more "evidence" about these "facts" about Joseph Smith on this board.  Is that what you want?

Trust me, we've heard them all already.  But that argument is not going to go anywhere.  The reason is that it starts with your assumption that you know more about our history than we do.  Incorrect assumption begets incorrect conclusions.  End of story.

Quote

I do work for a living, I don't answer every single question put in front of me. 

Yes, I understand.  And that's fair.  But hat doesn't give you an excuse to ignore any point that you find difficult to address.  And some of your behavior on this thread just in the past few posts is beginning to look that way.

Quote

I am married and yes I come to different conclusions than my wife on some things.  Some things are discerned by the spirit, but many other things we have to figure out with our minds.

And so you understand that some things are true even if you do not get that confirmation.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[Midwest LDS]

11 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Understood.  But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.  

Perhaps not to you but it is to us. This is a Latter-day Saint site after all, and we believe strongly that God can and does answer our personal prayers in a direct manner. You can tell us our answers are incorrect if you like, but you will not be believed. I have real, personal experiences with God answering my prayers and your opinion of those experiences is, frankly, irrelevant to me. Sorry if that's hard to understand, but it is true nonetheless. James 1:5 comes to mind

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him"

Edited December 5, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

This is a thread discussing the differences between the KJV and JST, so I brought up an example.  I am also presenting factual information about Joseph Smith

Let's test this assertion. Here are a few of your quotes:

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

t'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?

Is this what you consider "factual information"—your personal (false) conclusions about Joseph Smith's motivations?

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

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

Joseph Smith said no such thing. Another of your "facts", apparently.

1 hour ago, Klaymen said:

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

Can you prove this? Or is this just another "Klaymen Fact"?

1 hour 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.

The "True Story", aka Klaymen's unsubstantiated belief in what some antiMormons said. Another Klaymen Fact.

Your "facts" are nothing of the sort. Be honest and admit this.

14 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

but I am not attacking the posters themselves, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

I am happy to let everyone believe what they want. I am happy to let everyone preach what they want. I am not happy to let a guest come into my living room and piss on the carpet. That is what you are doing, Klaymen. Why the mods allow it, I do not know. But I do know their patience is not infinite.

14 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

You also had an amazing hissy-fit when someone else wished to speculate about the Holy Spirit.

Quote my "hissy fit". Show that I "had an amazing hissy-fit" on that occasion. If you cannot demonstrate such a thing—and you will not be able to, because it is a bald-faced lie—I expect* an open admission of your duplicity.

*Actually, I do not expect it. I expect quite the opposite. An open admission of error would be given only by an honest man of integrity.

14 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

You seem very closed minded and intolerant of other people's opinions.

Of course I seem that way to you. I would expect no less from someone who honestly believes he has a right to piss on other people's carpets.

14 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

While I highly doubt the idea that JS actually correcting some of Jesus words that could have been misplaced by another author, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and it helps me understand where the LDS people are coming from.   

I actually don't care about your motivations. I care about dishonesty, which you have displayed in abundance. The rules of the forum are crystal clear, and you agreed to them when you signed up. This says a great deal about you, far more than whatever beliefs you may have about Joseph Smith or Jesus Christ or me.

[Klaymen]

 

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Christ's words were never meant to be viewed through the lens of a pagan philosopher, but Creedal Christianity incorporated this very such error into it's core through the Creeds.  this verse in particular was used to justify apostate ideas.

Hence when a person who comes from a Creedal background reads these words, the inherently misunderstand what is meant here.  It's not that person's fault, but it is extremely difficult for such a person to sort out what is of God and what is of Plato when all they have to go off of is Creedal documents.  Hence why God, being ever loving, continues to guide and clarify our understanding here.  So we don't have to play these games that all involve looking to men for Truth (translation games/ interpretations games/ history games/ etc).  Instead we remember that God is our King and ask Him "how does a person best understand your words here?"

Or you could replace the word "Creedal" with "Joseph Smith", right? 

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So we don't have to play these games that all involve looking to men for Truth (translation games/ interpretations games/ history games/ etc).  Instead we remember that God is our King and ask Him "how does a person best understand your words here?"

But Joseph Smith is the filter through which you view scripture, so you are looking to a man for truth.   Of course, you could say the same thing about the KJV as is.  

John 4 says "God is a Spirit" and 1700+ years later Joseph Smith changes it to "God has promised us His Spirit".  Why should we trust him?  I suppose I might need to find other examples.

[person0]

19 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

Understood.  But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.  

Such a belief is exactly why I would become agnostic or even atheist if I for some reason decided that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were not the true Church of Christ.  If I can't expect to be able to go to God and get an answer, then I should give up as there is no hope to ever come to a reasonable conclusion about the truth.  Why so many people can't see that is completely baffling to me.

[Klaymen]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

First, I am not an expert in Greek.  I was going off of your words earlier when you said,"There is no Greek word for "promise"".  I failed to read the words after "In this sentence."  My bad.

But the fact is that my overall point still addressed the point you were trying to make.  Men are limited by mortal tongues.  And translating any esoteric words are extremely difficult to ensure infallibility.  And translating from ancient languages to modern are even more so.

Like I said, I wasn't saying it was correct or incorrect as a literal word for word translation.  But I don't think you fully appreciate the difficulty in really translating a message when you're only hung up on individual words.  Just look at Google Translate.  Word for word, yes, fine.  But any sentence and you're on your own buddy.

You say you understood it, but you still didn't understand this much?

What exactly is your linguistic training anyway? Not an accusation or challenge.  Just curious.

Trust me, we've heard them all already.  But that argument is not going to go anywhere.  The reason is that it starts with your assumption that you know more about our history than we do.  Incorrect assumption begets incorrect conclusions.  End of story.

Yes, I understand.  And that's fair.  But hat doesn't give you an excuse to ignore any point that you find difficult to address.  And some of your behavior on this thread just in the past few posts is beginning to look that way.

And so you understand that some things are true even if you do not get that confirmation.

The concept is not difficult.  I studied french for 7 years, spanish for 2, german for 1.  I regularly listen to youtube sermons in french.  \

I understood what you said and went on to point out that it looks like there were sufficient greek words to capture the essence of the difference in the two versions of John 4.