no I wouldn’t. I taught gospel doctrine for years. I know what’s in the lesson manuals. the JST is in the KJV footnotes in the LDS edition too. It comes into play whenever necessary under that “we believe in the bible as far as it is translated correctly” caveat.Not quite, we read the KJV, and in discussion may look at the JST and discuss how it may fit with the Bible. To say that LDS routinely interpret the KJV in conjunction with JST is a wee bit misleading, wouldn’t you say?
Paul
Paul,Quote:
Also, the JST of Mathew is a part of official mormon scriptures.
Part of the Pearl of Great Price is Joseph Smith - Matthew which is Joseph’s “inspired translation” of Matthew 23 & 24. Have you never read your own scriptures?
Paul
LDS do read it as they would any of Joseph Smiths writings, but in its whole it is not LDS scripture, apart from a small excerpt you pointed out in the Pearl of great price.And so you know that is not the point. The JST version is not the KJV, and LDS do use it.
Yes indeed, one verse and one chapter are found in the Pearl of great price. The fault was mine I thought you were referring to the whole of Matthew.Also, the JST of Mathew is a part of official mormon scriptures. scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/contents
I don’t see a different degrees of glory implication. Paul first describes a natural order, creatures of earth, air and water. We wouldn’t imply that humans are a part of each of these “levels”. Our level is “earth”.Yes you are correct Paul is talking about two levels I would characterize them a little differently than you have described them here. However the main issue is the differences between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, and is there any mention of the 3 degrees of glory. Paul teaches that not all flesh is the same on earth the differences are to be found between human, animal birds and fish. Likewise he is also suggesting that there are differences in heavenly bodies. They not only differ from the earthly bodies but also differ from each other, in a sense somewhat like the difference of the splendour of the sun, the moon, and the different stars.
Now is there a mention of levels of glory no not explicitly, however differences in splendour found amongst the heavenly body suggested by Paul allows for this notion implicitly. Why else would there be differences in the glory of the heavenly bodies?
Paul
I think that parts of JST in the foot notes are an appropriate place for them to be for LDS. However, their placement there does not equate with there being a “Mormon bible” with the idea of an altered text for the King James associated with that term. However, by that term you are meaning that we have our own published version of the King James with LDS foot notes. I can go along with that.no I wouldn’t. I taught gospel doctrine for years. I know what’s in the lesson manuals. the JST is in the KJV footnotes in the LDS edition too. It comes into play whenever necessary under that “we believe in the bible as far as it is translated correctly” caveat.
The different degrees are in the standard King James version of the bible. It has nothing to do with the Joseph Smith translation. The JS translation is footnoted in the Mormon edition of the King James but it has absolutely nothing to do with the King James where the degrees are located.the LDS start with the KJV and modify with the JST when they want and thus, in essence do end up with a “mormon bible”.
But he does mention the sun, moon and stars as in verse 41. It sounds like different degrees of glory to me.I don’t see a different degrees of glory implication. Paul first describes a natural order, creatures of earth, air and water. We wouldn’t imply that humans are a part of each of these “levels”. Our level is “earth”.
He then makes the observation that the heavens are ordered as sun, moon and stars. We know today that the “heavens” are much more complicated and diverse in nature.
He then goes on to say that our existence also has levels of order. First, we live and are corruptible, weak and lack glory. Then we die and are “animated”…resurrected. And at this “level” we have new properties of incorruptibility, glory, power, spirituality.
Paul is only describing a natural order of life and resurrection.
He says nothing about 3 degrees of heaven. He says nothing about anything “telestial”.
Better question - why was the original Bible (which the Catholic Church put together) changed so radically in the KJV?Why did the catholics change the King James so radically from its original in their own translation?
How was the “original Bible changed radically” in the KJV? The KJV was a fresh translation of the Bible into English made from the “original tongues” (Hebrew and Greek) in the 16th century, using the best manuscripts that were available then; and was the best translation of the Bible available at that time (and probably still is) at least into English. It was much better translation than the Latin vulgate that the Catholic Church was using. The Vulgate was translated by Jerome in AD 380, which is an awful long time ago, and was full of errors. The KJV was a far better and more accurate translation than the Latin Vulgate, which was the official, standard Bible of the Catholic Church. So how was the “original Bible changed radically” in the KJV?Better question - why was the original Bible (which the Catholic Church put together) changed so radically in the KJV?
Off-topic - I digress…
First of all it is not the “Mormon Bible”. The KJV was not made by “Mormons”. It was mad by the translators of King James in the 16th century. Secondly, the words “celestial” literally means “heavenly,” and “terrestrial” means “earthly”. That is the literal etymological meaning of those words. The KJV, being an older translation, tends to use older, more archaic forms of words than modern translations. Hence, in most modern translations, the original Greek words are translated “heavenly” instead of “celestial,” and “earthly” instead of “terrestrial”. But they still mean the same things. It is like the difference between “see” and “behold”. They both mean the same thing. It does not mean that the translations mean different things, just because they use different words for the same tings. Thirdly, in the modern translations too the comparison with the “sun,” “moon,” and “stars” are still made; therefore the essence of the translation, and symbolism it represents, remains intact; and the comparison with the “three degrees of glory” can still be made, regardless of what words are used for “celestial” or “terrestrial”.The NAB does not use the words celestial and terrestial. Comparing the mormon bible against the NAB…the passages are changed in the mormon bible to reflect the mormon belief. The NAB footnotes this…
19 [39-41] The expression “its own body” (1 Cor 15:38) leads to a development on the marvelous diversity evident in bodily life.
20 [42-44] The principles of qualitative difference before and after death (1 Cor 15:36-38) and of diversity on different levels of creation (1 Cor 15:39-41) are now applied to the human body. Before: a body animated by a lower, natural life-principle (psyche) and endowed with the properties of natural existence (corruptibility, lack of glory, weakness). After: a body animated by a higher life-principle (pneuma; cf 1 Cor 15:45) and endowed with other qualities (incorruptibility, glory, power, spirituality), which are properties of God himself.
That is just a commentary. The commentary does not replace the biblical text. The commentary is wrong. It is a modern commentary made by people who are already familiar with the LDS interpretation, and are opposed to it, therefore they can twist their commentary to suit their purpose. It is worthless, and has no bearing on the biblical text.Nothing about differing degrees of heaven…just two levels being described. Alive or dead.
the catholics never had anything to do with the KJV. We had a bible hundreds of years before that was even thought of.The different degrees are in the standard King James version of the bible. It has nothing to do with the Joseph Smith translation. The JS translation is footnoted in the Mormon edition of the King James but it has absolutely nothing to do with the King James where the degrees are located.
Why did the catholics change the King James so radically from its original in their own translation?
Read Zerinus’ post above about the king james version.the catholics never had anything to do with the KJV. We had a bible hundreds of years before that was even thought of.
At the time of King James it was a fresh translation, but also translated in a slant to support the claims of the King’s Church. It was written in the language that people used at the time.How was the “original Bible changed radically” in the KJV? The KJV was a fresh translation of the Bible into English made from the “original tongues” (Hebrew and Greek) in the 16th century, using the best manuscripts that were available then; and was the best translation of the Bible available at that time (and probably still is) at least into English. It was much better translation than the Latin vulgate that the Catholic Church was using. The Vulgate was translated by Jerome in AD 380, which is an awful long time ago, and was full of errors. The KJV was a far better and more accurate translation than the Latin Vulgate, which was the official, standard Bible of the Catholic Church. So how was the “original Bible changed radically” in the KJV?
zerinus
Actually, that’s not completely true. For the missionary lessons they use the KJV without the Inspired translation. That’s generally what they will use for Sunday School lessons as well. The Inspired Translation of Joseph Smith is not considered canon by the LDS Church.At the time of King James it was a fresh translation, but also translated in a slant to support the claims of the King’s Church. It was written in the language that people used at the time.
The mormons use a version of the KJV that has been modified, via footnotes, in a slant to support the claims of the mormon church.
The Latin Vulgate was replaced in the US in 1970 with the New American Bible, a fresh translation of the original texts, using modern scholarship. Also written in the language that the people use at the time.
nothing of zerinus is worthy of my time. his post makes it obvious that he is unaware of the true history of the bible, especially the KJV. in any case it bears no relevance to what I was posting to you.Read Zerinus’ post above about the king james version.
They still use a KJV that contains the JST footnotes. Every bible, and quadruple combo that the church produces has those footnotes. For example, “LDS Edition” is clearly stated here:Actually, that’s not completely true. For the missionary lessons they use the KJV without the Inspired translation. That’s generally what they will use for Sunday School lessons as well. The Inspired Translation of Joseph Smith is not considered canon by the LDS Church.
Adding footnotes to a text does not amount to modifying it. That is why it has been put in the footnotes, so that people can accept it or not, as they please. Most LDS who read their scriptures never bother to look at the footnotes, unless they are doing intensive research into something.The mormons use a version of the KJV that has been modified, via footnotes, in a slant to support the claims of the mormon church.
That is not true. When I was in seminary our studies of the OT and NT included what was in the footnotes. Not only for the JST, but for the cross references to other mormon scripture. How else do you think Peter describing the sun, moon and stars turned into three degrees of heaven? It is not possible without the D&C cross references.Adding footnotes to a text does not amount to modifying it. That is why it has been put in the footnotes, so that people can accept it or not, as they please. Most LDS who read their scriptures never bother to look at the footnotes, unless they are doing intensive research into something.
zerinus
Yes, in the seminary, because it is an intensive scripture study course, they would make more use of the footnotes and cross-references; but people studying scriptures at home don’t very often bother to do that. If they wanted to lok up every footnote and scripture reference, they would never get through the book in their lifetime.That is not true. When I was in seminary our studies of the OT and NT included what was in the footnotes. Not only for the JST, but for the cross references to other mormon scripture. How else do you think Peter describing the sun, moon and stars turned into three degrees of heaven? It is not possible without the D&C cross references.
Then I would say it is not an “accept as you please”. No one ever said to me in seminary the the footnotes were just a suggestion for me to accept as I please. They are a part of the mormon edition of the KJV Bible. Period.Yes, in the seminary, because it is an intensive scripture study course, they would make more use of the footnotes and cross-references; but people studying scriptures at home don’t very often bother to do that. If they wanted to lok up every footnote and scripture reference, they would never get through the book in their lifetime.
zerinus