Joseph Smith and Swedenborgianism

[RobNY]

But what I find interesting is that many of people here may not know that in the new testament (first Cor. 15:40-42), the celestial and the terrestial are mentioned. Both mentioned as aspects of glory.

And so, it is not improbrable that both Joseph Smith and Swedenborg took that scripture to heart in contemplation and commented on it.

I have no idea what the catholic church says about celestial and terrestial bodies as different in glory.

I can’t read through all of this, but I think another obvious explanation is that Paul is using a metaphor, referring to the predominant Ptolemaic cosmology of the day.

According to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic view, the earth was the immovable center and the planets and stars were in, “spheres” around the earth. Hence, the various levels were the, “heavenly spheres.” At the very outer rim was the, “primum mobile” (which was ninth or tenth depending on who constructed the cosmology), the first moved. Just below that was the crystalline sphere. More or less, the first moved was moved by its desire to reach God, and all of the lower spheres were moved, mechanically, by the sphere just higher than it. That set the entire universe in motion.

When Paul says he was caught up to the third heaven, it seems rather obvious that he is employing a metaphor, making use of the Ptolemaic cosmology, for the third heaven.

That, or I am mistaking the cosmology-- it is possible he is operating on a Jewish cosmology with which I am not familiar.

Either way, it reads too far into this to interpret it completely without regard for the cosmological theories which he is using in his expression.

If you disagree with that, I’d appreciate some information on possible alternative cosmologies he might be employing. Thanks.

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

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.

No more than the footnotes and cross-references in any Bible. Many Bibles come with footnotes and cross-references, includint the NAB you have been quoting from here. Therefore they are all “modified” Bibles by their respective churches, according to your theory.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

No more than the footnotes and cross-references in any Bible. Many Bibles come with footnotes and cross-references, includint the NAB you have been quoting from here. Therefore they are all “modified” Bibles by their respective churches, according to your theory.

zerinus

The mormon edition of the KJV cross references another Bible translation. The NAB does not cross reference another Bible translation.

The mormon cross references change the meaning of the KJV. The NAB cross references do not change the meaning of the NAB.

 

[zerinus]

The mormon edition of the KJV cross references another Bible translation. The NAB does not cross reference another Bible translation.

The mormon cross references change the meaning of the KJV. The NAB cross references do not change the meaning of the NAB.

The “Mormon edition of the KJV” does better than that. It cross-references the “Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” the “Doctrine and Covenants,” and the “Pearl of Great Price;” which are the modern scriptures of the LDS Church. The references to the JST are inconsequential by comparison.

zerinus

 

[RobNY]

By the way, the claims about the textual sources of the KJV (the textus receptus of Erasmus) being the best, and probably the best available, is not true. That doesn’t mean its bad, it just means they’re not the best. In some instances Erasmus actually had some bad manuscript evidence, and that can be seen in such unattested verses as the, “three witnesses” in 1 John (his Greek manuscripts were lacking).

The science of textual criticism has much improved since the time of Erasmus, and as such, we actually have a more accurate view of what the autograph copies of Scripture contained because of it.

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

By the way, the claims about the textual sources of the KJV (the textus receptus of Erasmus) being the best, and probably the best available, is not true. That doesn’t mean its bad, it just means they’re not the best. In some instances Erasmus actually had some bad manuscript evidence, and that can be seen in such unattested verses as the, “three witnesses” in 1 John (his Greek manuscripts were lacking).

The science of textual criticism has much improved since the time of Erasmus, and as such, we actually have a more accurate view of what the autograph copies of Scripture contained because of it.

-Rob

I said it was the best at that time.

zerinus

 

[RobNY]

I said it was the best at that time.

zerinus

Yes. That point is fair enough. But, my post was more in response to your comment about the translation and today, which after saying it was the best at the time, you continued (post 86):

" (and probably still is) at least into English."

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

Yes. That point is fair enough. But, my post was more in response to your comment about the translation and today, which after saying it was the best at the time, you continued (post 86):

-Rob

Yes, I believe that the translation is still the best, even though the manuscript used may not be optimal.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

The “Mormon edition of the KJV” does better than that. It cross-references the “Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” the “Doctrine and Covenants,” and the “Pearl of Great Price;” which are the modern scriptures of the LDS Church. The references to the JST are inconsequential by comparison.

zerinus

As I said already, it is a mormon bible.

The KJV bible, when it was translated, also had an instruction from King James…no marginal notes, unless they were to explain the original Hebrew or Greek words.

Like all things mormonism, nothing belongs to mormonism. All has been borrowed and twisted into something it never was intended to be.

 

[why_me]

As I said already, it is a mormon bible.

The KJV bible, when it was translated, also had an instruction from King James…no marginal notes, unless they were to explain the original Hebrew or Greek words.

Like all things mormonism, nothing belongs to mormonism. All has been borrowed and twisted into something it never was intended to be.

rebecca,
I posted some scripture from first Cor. In that scripture it mentions degrees of glory, celestial and terrestial. Later it mentions the sun, moon and stars as degrees of glory. This came from the king james version of the bible. Please go to any bookshop and look up these verses that I posted previously and read the verses. You will see that it does contain those words.

It has nothing to do with a ‘mormon’ bible. Oh and by the way, the mormons do not have a mormon bible. They have the king james version. But like all christian religions they have the bible footnoted with cross references etc.

Now the catholics do have their own bible as found in the st. joseph’s edition. No other church, I believe, uses this bible. It is also cross referenced and has catholic interpretations. However, the so called ‘mormon bible’ is just a plain ‘old’ king james bible.

 

[zerinus]

As I said already, it is a mormon bible.

The KJV bible, when it was translated, also had an instruction from King James…no marginal notes, unless they were to explain the original Hebrew or Greek words.

Like all things mormonism, nothing belongs to mormonism. All has been borrowed and twisted into something it never was intended to be.

Fair enough. If by adding cross-references in the KJV footnotes to the Book of Mormon and other modern LDS scripture (by your reckoning) we are “modifying the KJV,” and turn it into a “Mormon Bible,” then I am all for it. By all means, let’s “Modify the KJV” and turn it into a “Mormon Bible”. There are many more intelligent folk in the world who would disagree with you, I might add; but if that is what you think, then let it be as you say. I am not going to argue with you about that.

zerinus

 

[RobNY]

Yes, I believe that the translation is still the best, even though the manuscript used may not be optimal.

zerinus

But I would think, as a general principle, that the accuracy of the translation is a moot point if the textual evidence which is being translated is poor.

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

But I would think, as a general principle, that the accuracy of the translation is a moot point if the textual evidence which is being translated is poor.

-Rob

That depends on which quality on balance overweighs the other. If the textual inaccuracies are relatively few, or theologically and historically not very significant; while the translation is so good that it is unsurpassable; that would still make it the best translation.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

rebecca,
I posted some scripture from first Cor. In that scripture it mentions degrees of glory, celestial and terrestial. Later it mentions the sun, moon and stars as degrees of glory. This came from the king james version of the bible. Please go to any bookshop and look up these verses that I posted previously and read the verses. You will see that it does contain those words.

Paul is not talking about what you claim or believe he is talking about. No where does he describe heaven as three differing degrees of glory. And no where is a third “telestial” anything described.

It has nothing to do with a ‘mormon’ bible. Oh and by the way, the mormons do not have a mormon bible. They have the king james version. But like all christian religions they have the bible footnoted with cross references etc.

It is not the KJV bible. It has been modified to match to mormon beliefs and ideas.

Now the catholics do have their own bible as found in the st. joseph’s edition. No other church, I believe, uses this bible. It is also cross referenced and has catholic interpretations. However, the so called ‘mormon bible’ is just a plain ‘old’ king james bible.

Which is fine! If mormons used the JST, and said this is our bible, I would be fine with that. What mormons do is claim to use the KJV, which they don’t. They use a version of it that is not correct. and tell people that they use the same bible everyone else does. They don’t! They use the bible in conjunction with mormon make-believe scripture.

 

[RebeccaJ]

zerinus,

If I took the KJV Bible and footnoted it to the Q’uran, so anyone who read the Q’uran referenced KJV Bible, they would find passages that helped to understand the KJV in the light of Islamic beliefs. Would you call that book the KJV Bible? Is it still the Bible that was written at the instruction of King James?

I say no, it isn’t. That would be an Islamic Bible. Mormons have done no different. They have taken a Book and referenced it to sources that that book was never meant to source. You may as well take the Constitution of the United States and reference it to “Green Eggs and Ham”, and call it “Government”.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

If I took the KJV Bible and footnoted it to the Q’uran, so anyone who read the Q’uran referenced KJV Bible, they would find passages that helped to understand the KJV in the light of Islamic beliefs. Would you call that book the KJV Bible? Is it still the Bible that was written at the instruction of King James?

I say no, it isn’t. That would be an Islamic Bible. Mormons have done no different. They have taken a Book and referenced it to sources that that book was never meant to source. You may as well take the Constitution of the United States and reference it to “Green Eggs and Ham”, and call it “Government”.

Of course I would call it the KJV Bible. It may not be particularly useful to me, if I am not interested in the subject of the cross-references; but it could be of use to a scholar who is particularly interested in sourcing biblical stories (and doctrines) found in the Koran. Many biblical stories are found in the Koran. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Pharaoh, David, Solomon, Jesus and Mary are all found in the Koran. Also many biblical themes, doctrines and teachings are found in the Koran. If you wanted to do an exhaustive reference, you could find thousands. Such a book might indeed be useful to a scholar with special interest in Islamic studies. That does not mean that it can no longer be called the KJV Bible. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course I would call it the KJV Bible. It may not be particularly useful to me, if I am not interested in the subject of the cross-references; but it could be of use to a scholar who is particularly interested in sourcing biblical stories (and doctrines) found in the Koran. Many biblical stories are found in the Koran. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Pharaoh, David, Solomon, Jesus and Mary are all found in the Koran. Also many biblical themes, doctrines and teachings are found in the Koran. If you wanted to do an exhaustive reference, you could find thousands. Such a book might indeed be useful to a scholar with special interest in Islamic studies. That does not mean that it can no longer be called the KJV Bible. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

zerinus

OK then, take any published item. Book, magazine article, summa theologica if you like, even someone’s blog. Modify it, and publish it under the same title. See what happens. Let me know.

 

[zerinus]

OK then, take any published item. Book, magazine article, summa theologica if you like, even someone’s blog. Modify it, and publish it under the same title. See what happens. Let me know.

You are talking nonsense, and you know it.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Rebecca,

It is rather sad that you can’t seem to get it about the king james version. As I have said the verses are in that bible and not the mormon bible. But obviously you cannot admit this.

The bible has been interpreted in various ways. That is just the way it is. My purpose was simple: Joseph got his revelation based on that scripture in the king james version. He did not steal it from Swedenborg who also got his vision from the king james version. I proved my point.

If it helps you you may believe what you want to believe.

 

[why_me]

zerinus,

If I took the KJV Bible and footnoted it to the Q’uran, so anyone who read the Q’uran referenced KJV Bible, they would find passages that helped to understand the KJV in the light of Islamic beliefs. Would you call that book the KJV Bible? Is it still the Bible that was written at the instruction of King James?

I say no, it isn’t. That would be an Islamic Bible. Mormons have done no different. They have taken a Book and referenced it to sources that that book was never meant to source. You may as well take the Constitution of the United States and reference it to “Green Eggs and Ham”, and call it “Government”.

And an anticatholic can say about the st. joseph edition of the bible: Catholics have done no different. They have taken a book and referenced it to the sources (saints etc.) that the book was never meant to source. You may as well take the constitutiion of the united states and reference it to 'Green Eggs and Ham, and call it ‘Government’.