Luke 10:23, Joseph Smith translation

[christianley]

In the King James Bible it reads:

Luke 10:22

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

In the Joseph Smith translation it is translated as:

Luke 10:23, Inspired Version (emphasis added)

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

The Inspired Version can be found here:

centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-luk.htm

 

[Telstar]

In the King James Bible it reads:

Luke 10:22

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

In the Joseph Smith translation it is translated as:

Luke 10:23, Inspired Version (emphasis added)

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

The Inspired Version can be found here:

centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-luk.htm

I find that a little odd considering his purported ‘vision’ of the father & the son together, both with “flesh and bone” bodies. If his ‘translation’ is supposed to be the most accurate of all Bibles, wouldn’t that contradiction confirm that his whole story about the ‘vision’ was a lie, after all? Or, does it mean that what LDS claim to believe is not what they really believe? I know I’m confizzled by it.

 

[JHow]

“Translation” here does not mean the usual work of rendering the meaning of a text from one language to another. Smith’s method was to “correct” and “revise” based on revelation. He would read a passage in English and then make inspired changes or corrections. It might be worth commenting on the contents of such an exercise, if this method seems a reasonable approach to you.

 

[christianley]

I find that a little odd considering his purported ‘vision’ of the father & the son together, both with “flesh and bone” bodies. If his ‘translation’ is supposed to be the most accurate of all Bibles, wouldn’t that contradiction confirm that his whole story about the ‘vision’ was a lie, after all? Or, does it mean that what LDS claim to believe is not what they really believe? I know I’m confizzled by it.

What these verses show is very simple. Joseph Smith invented his First Vision story. The supposed inspired translation of this verse demonstrates modalism. Joseph seems to constantly be moving from Trinitarianism to Modalism and back again, finally winding up with Tritheism when He invented his First Vision where we wind up with several Gods instead of just the One God taught in his early scriptures.

It seems to me it is much simpler to believe in one Eternal God existing spiritually as three distinct persons with one of those persons uniting God with man through His incarnation. There is something profound about God condescending to work our salvation out that way. Both modalism and tritheism contradict the Bible. Joseph had a hard time figuring out which heresy he was going to embrace. Who knows what would have happened if he would have lived another 40 years.

 

[JHow]

What these verses show is very simple. Joseph Smith invented his First Vision story. The supposed inspired translation of this verse demonstrates modalism. Joseph seems to constantly be moving from Trinitarianism to Modalism and back again, finally winding up with Tritheism when He invented his First Vision where we wind up with several Gods instead of just the One God taught in his early scriptures.

It seems to me it is much simpler to believe in one Eternal God existing spiritually as three distinct persons with one of those persons uniting God with man through His incarnation. There is something profound about God condescending to work our salvation out that way. Both modalism and tritheism contradict the Bible. Joseph had a hard time figuring out which heresy he was going to embrace. Who knows what would have happened if he would have lived another 40 years.

It does seem inconsistent.

In your view is it this sort of inconsistency that provides the best evidence that Smith had not received true revelation? Or is it the heretical nature of the content? Or something else?

Personally, I have a hard time getting past the methods employed in “translating” (BOM as well as Inspired Version).

 

[christianley]

It does seem inconsistent.

In your view is it this sort of inconsistency that provides the best evidence that Smith had not received true revelation? Or is it the heretical nature of the content? Or something else?

Personally, I have a hard time getting past the methods employed in “translating” (BOM as well as Inspired Version).

The methods employed are suspect, but if the result was something beautiful and true I wouldn’t care about the methods employed. What we get instead is a mass of confusion.

 

[christianley]

I wonder if Mormons ever look at the JST translation footnotes provided in the LDS copyrighted King James Bible. I looked to make sure that Luke 10:23 of the Inspired Version was actually present in their footnotes and it was. The doctrine of the Godhead was obviously developed over several years until Joseph Smith concocted his final version in the late 1830s. Obviously, Joseph wanted to be God so he invented a God that was just a man like us who advanced to become a God.

 

[ParkerD]

I wonder if Mormons ever look at the JST translation footnotes provided in the LDS copyrighted King James Bible. I looked to make sure that Luke 10:23 of the Inspired Version was actually present in their footnotes and it was. The doctrine of the Godhead was obviously developed over several years until Joseph Smith concocted his final version in the late 1830s. Obviously, Joseph … invented a God that was just a man like us who advanced to become a God.

Christianley,

In answer to what you wondered, my experience is that some do and some don’t.

I don’t sometimes, unless a footnote is pointed out during a class discussion such as a Sunday School class. I enjoy the KJV as is, but do learn sometimes from the footnotes, but it is evident to me in reading those that they weren’t a “finished product”–which is known from the history of the process of what Joseph Smith went through as he had a King James Bible marked up with inspired changes but never said he had completed the project of doing that. Either he or a scribe crossed out certain words such as in the passage you noted, but he may not have added back a word he intended to add later, or may have felt he needed to think about the passage for a longer time, and didn’t get back to it.

You might look at the footnote for Matthew 11:27 (i.e. 28 in the JST). Joseph Smith didn’t change that verse in the same way, so it is evident that there is an incompleteness in those passages as they were marked up in the KJV Bible they were using for their work.

As far as your conclusions that you drew, I don’t share those at all, but obviously it is often a conclusion that is arrived at by many people who write their opinions about these things, even using the kinds of completely wrong assumptions such as you made.

I think one can trust the Bible to have given great insights about this important topic, and I myself trust the King James Version very well. But I don’t want to go into another revolving door conversation about the promised opportunity to become “like Christ” and “inherit all things” and “enter into His joy” and be a “joint heir”.

Isaiah 9:6 is a passage familiar to hopefully many people:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

I love that verse perhaps as much as any verse in the entire Bible. I know that it is true in its every word.

A wish of peace to all readers.

 

[christianley]

Christianley,

In answer to what you wondered, my experience is that some do and some don’t.

I don’t sometimes, unless a footnote is pointed out during a class discussion such as a Sunday School class. I enjoy the KJV as is, but do learn sometimes from the footnotes, but it is evident to me in reading those that they weren’t a “finished product”–which is known from the history of the process of what Joseph Smith went through as he had a King James Bible marked up with inspired changes but never said he had completed the project of doing that. Either he or a scribe crossed out certain words such as in the passage you noted, but he may not have added back a word he intended to add later, or may have felt he needed to think about the passage for a longer time, and didn’t get back to it.

You might look at the footnote for Matthew 11:27 (i.e. 28 in the JST). Joseph Smith didn’t change that verse in the same way, so it is evident that there is an incompleteness in those passages as they were marked up in the KJV Bible they were using for their work.

As far as your conclusions that you drew, I don’t share those at all, but obviously it is often a conclusion that is arrived at by many people who write their opinions about these things, even using the kinds of completely wrong assumptions such as you made.

I think one can trust the Bible to have given great insights about this important topic, and I myself trust the King James Version very well. But I don’t want to go into another revolving door conversation about the promised opportunity to become “like Christ” and “inherit all things” and “enter into His joy” and be a “joint heir”.

Isaiah 9:6 is a passage familiar to hopefully many people:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

I love that verse perhaps as much as any verse in the entire Bible. I know that it is true in its every word.

A wish of peace to all readers.

You have a valid point. I don’t know how we Catholics square the verse about Jesus being the Everlasting Father with Trinitarian theology.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

. If his ‘translation’ is supposed to be the most accurate of all Bibles

It was supposed to be, but he never finished it before being murdered, and it’s unclear which of his notes were inspiration and which were theories he hadn’t finished praying about. Also, the JST was in the possession of the Reorganized Church, who still owns the copyright. So no, we don’t vouch for the translation, other than the Matthew and Moses parts, which were clearly complete.