Mormons how do you interprete the beginning of Johns Gospel

[PattyPryor]

I always felt the beginning of Johns Gospel really stated the Trinity. I was wondering how you saw it as Mormons.

In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.

2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

4 What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;

5 and light shines in darkness, and darkness could not overpower it.

6 A man came, sent by God. His name was John.

7 He came as a witness, to bear witness to the light, so that everyone might believe through him.

8 He was not the light, he was to bear witness to the light.

9 The Word was the real light that gives light to everyone; he was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world that had come into being through him, and the world did not recognise him.

11 He came to his own and his own people did not accept him.

12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believed in his name

13 who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself.

14 The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John witnesses to him. He proclaims: ‘This is the one of whom I said: He who comes after me has passed ahead of me because he existed before me.’

16 Indeed, from his fullness we have, all of us, received -one gift replacing anothe,

17 for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.

18 No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

 

[BartBurk]

Here is what the Mormons believe it should say according to Joseph Smith’s “inspired” translation of the Bible:

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.

4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;

5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came into the world for a witness, to bear witness of the light, to bear record of the gospel through the Son, unto all, that through him men might believe.

8 He was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light,

9 Which was the true light, which lighteth every man who cometh into the world;

10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; only to them who believe on his name.

13 He was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow, he really butchered it, didn’t he?

 

[PattyPryor]

i still don’t understand why God would change the bible anyway…

 

[xmormon]

God didn’t change the Bible Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith made numerous changes to the Bible and called his version ‘The Inspired Version’ now called the JST (Joseph Smith Translation)

In it he made numerous changes to parts he claimed had been corrupted by the Catholic church etc. However while doing this he made a major mistake Joseph Smith claimed the book of Mormon was the most correct of any book. But later Joseph Smith hung himself with this statement because he retranslated the Bible ( The Joseph Smith translation or inspired version as it is called) In it he corrected verses of scripture that supposedly had been corrupted for example. Matthew 6:38 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” In the BOM 3 Nephi 13:33 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Word for word of Matt.6:38 However in the Joseph Smith correction of the Bible he corrected it to read “Wherefore seek not the things of this world but seek first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Point is Joseph Smith blows it bad here because he put the old corrupted version in his BOM and forgot to change it when he retranslated the Bible. He did this many times proving there was no need for the book of mormon "to bring back “the plain and precious things”(1 Nephi 13:35) as he claimed because he blew it and put the old corrupted verses in the BOM time after time.

 

[Paul_G]

Interesting comments, but when you use the title “Bible” which one are you talking about, and are you aware that verses have, for centuries, have been added to and subtracted from the standard translations. The “Bible” has not at anytime been, from the time of the Apostles, handed down to us in one unchanged document. So it appears as though that the argument here is that scholars can tinker add and subtract from it, but someone who says has been inspired to do so can’t.

Paul

 

[xmormon]

God didn’t change the Bible Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith made numerous changes to the Bible and called his version ‘The Inspired Version’ now called the JST (Joseph Smith Translation)

In it he made numerous changes to parts he claimed had been corrupted by the Catholic church etc. However while doing this he made a major mistake Joseph Smith claimed the book of Mormon was the most correct of any book. But later Joseph Smith hung himself with this statement because he retranslated the Bible ( The Joseph Smith translation or inspired version as it is called) In it he corrected verses of scripture that supposedly had been corrupted for example. Matthew 6:38 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” In the BOM 3 Nephi 13:33 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Word for word of Matt.6:38 However in the Joseph Smith correction of the Bible he corrected it to read “Wherefore seek not the things of this world but seek first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Point is Joseph Smith blows it bad here because he put the old corrupted version in his BOM and forgot to change it when he retranslated the Bible. He did this many times proving there was no need for the book of mormon "to bring back “the plain and precious things”(1 Nephi 13:35) as he claimed because he blew it and put the old corrupted verses in the BOM time after time.

My point exactly. Joseph Smith Claimed he was God’s prophet, speaking for God when he translated the Book of Mormon and when he retranslated the Bible. His blunder as pointed out above proved he was not God’s prophet speaking for God…

 

[J_C]

Interesting comments, but when you use the title “Bible” which one are you talking about, and are you aware that verses have, for centuries, have been added to and subtracted from the standard translations. The “Bible” has not at anytime been, from the time of the Apostles, handed down to us in one unchanged document. So it appears as though that the argument here is that scholars can tinker add and subtract from it, but someone who says has been inspired to do so can’t.

Paul

Hi Paul, my take on this is that most translations of the bible have been done by groups of people, like committees, rather than single individuals, though there certainly have been a few that have been done by individuals. i think this group work helps to prevent errors, especailly considering that thay have taken place over the course of many centuries so that the bible we have had is well vetted i would say.

i am aware that there are a few controversial sentences and paragraphs, only a very few, but am not aware of any verses that have been added or subytracted unless you are talking about the removal of sevral entire books by the protestants. I am not a bible authority; could you refer to some of these additions and subtractions so I will know what you are talking about?

also i am very intrigued by this issue raised by another about the differences between Josiph Smiths version and quiotes imbedded in the book of mormon. Could you address this? thank you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting comments, but when you use the title “Bible” which one are you talking about, and are you aware that verses have, for centuries, have been added to and subtracted from the standard translations. The “Bible” has not at anytime been, from the time of the Apostles, handed down to us in one unchanged document. So it appears as though that the argument here is that scholars can tinker add and subtract from it, but someone who says has been inspired to do so can’t.

Paul

In this case, the New Testament, the one the Catholic church compiled from the written testimony of the Apostles. Such writings are inspired of the Holy Spirit. That one.

 

[ibkc]

Interesting comments, but when you use the title “Bible” which one are you talking about, and are you aware that verses have, for centuries, have been added to and subtracted from the standard translations. The “Bible” has not at anytime been, from the time of the Apostles, handed down to us in one unchanged document. So it appears as though that the argument here is that scholars can tinker add and subtract from it, but someone who says has been inspired to do so can’t.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but there are manuscripts in the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) for all the books of the Bible, dating back to very early times. AFAIK no “originals” exist, but copies from close to the time that the originals would have been written. Now, translations of these documents can vary depending on the competency of the translator and the methods used to translate, but that is a very different matter from what you are charging.

 

[Paul_G]

My point exactly. Joseph Smith Claimed he was God’s prophet, speaking for God when he translated the Book of Mormon and when he retranslated the Bible. His blunder as pointed out above proved he was not God’s prophet speaking for God…

I believe it could show the opposite, the book of Mormon version – using the verses familiar to him at that time to express the impressions he was receiving - The later JST by direct inspiration relating to this particular verse. These two instances are from differing situations which do not conflict one another.

Paul

 

[majick275]

what “impressions”? all LDS accounts of the BoM process indicate he SAW the words in either the U&T or the seer stone (depending on which was being used at the time). He would have the scribe read back the words to ensure accuracy even. you can read in the D&C the process used for the JST. once again no “impressions”. JS claimed perfect accuracy in his revealed “scriptures”.

 

[xmormon]

Hi Paul, my take on this is that most translations of the bible have been done by groups of people, like committees, rather than single individuals, though there certainly have been a few that have been done by individuals. i think this group work helps to prevent errors, especailly considering that thay have taken place over the course of many centuries so that the bible we have had is well vetted i would say.

i am aware that there are a few controversial sentences and paragraphs, only a very few, but am not aware of any verses that have been added or subytracted unless you are talking about the removal of sevral entire books by the protestants. I am not a bible authority; could you refer to some of these additions and subtractions so I will know what you are talking about?

also i am very intrigued by this issue raised by another about the differences between Josiph Smiths version and quiotes imbedded in the book of mormon. Could you address this? thank you.

Hi. Read #5 on this thread it gives you a small example of the many time Joseph Smith exposed himself as an obvious fraud. First he translated the Book Of Mormon, Then he translated the Bible. The great problem arises when his exact quotes from the KJV placed in the Book of Mormon end up being what Joseph later claimed were corrupted verses In the JST (Joseph Smith translation of the Bible). This is one the best LDS apologist cannot answer, I have posed it many times and found them shaking their heads when they realize Joseph made this blunder.

 

[J_C]

thank you x, yes I have been following this question with great interest. Last night I spent about an hour thrumbing at random through my book of mormon looking for examples of bible phrases contained in there and found quite a few; most if not all of them were attributed in the footnotes and crossreferences.

i agree that in veiw of Josephs’ revision it is odd that some of these quotes which were later revised by Jospeh would not have appeared in revised form in the orginal Book of mormon translation. as majik275 said earlier and which i have already read about elsewhere Joseph translated letter by letter and had each character confiremed before moviung on to the next. this makes clear i think that it was a literal translation of devine source, and if this divine source was God then God would surely have already known of the corruptions in the King James that mormons claim to derive from catholic perversions of scripture. in my mind this casts doubt on things, and I donot mean to insult those who love this book, it may very well be that once i have read it completely myself I will see my errors.

Even so i am now not very familiar with the book, i think I am going to have to make the effort to read it beginning to end. I am not relishing this project because what I have read so far is cumbersome reading for me as i am irritated by so many repetitions of certain fillerphrasese like, “and it came to pass” which is so overworked that it makes me wonder whether the author had any literary ability at all, certainly nothing as graceful and enduring as the hebrew scriptures and the new testiment. this makes it tough for me to read even though as you can tell i do not write well myself, though this is mainly because of vision problems, arthritic hands, and a lack of time for good prroofreading; but i sure know the difference between good writing and mediocre.

 

[xmormon]

Hi. Read #5 on this thread it gives you a small example of the many time Joseph Smith exposed himself as an obvious fraud. First he translated the Book Of Mormon, Then he translated the Bible. The great problem arises when his exact quotes from the KJV placed in the Book of Mormon end up being what Joseph later claimed were corrupted verses In the JST (Joseph Smith translation of the Bible). This is one the best LDS apologist cannot answer, I have posed it many times and found them shaking their heads when they realize Joseph made this blunder.

Let me give you a another example.

KJV Matt. 7:2,3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge etc.

BOM 3 Nephi 14:1&2 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge etc.

JST Matt 7:2,3 (Joseph Smiths correction of these corrupted verses) Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but Judge righteous judgement etc.

Point: Joseph Smith claimed the BOM was the Most correct book, why then does it have the old corrupted words instead of the words in the JST? Answer Joseph forgot what he put in the BOM when he did the JST and gave himself away as an obvious fraud. The main purpose of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon according to the book and Joseph was "to bring back “the plain and precious things”(1 Nephi 13:35) that had been left out of the Bible. OOOOPS Joseph put the corrupted parts in his BOM…

 

[Paul_G]

what “impressions”? all LDS accounts of the BoM process indicate he SAW the words in either the U&T or the seer stone (depending on which was being used at the time). He would have the scribe read back the words to ensure accuracy even. you can read in the D&C the process used for the JST. once again no “impressions”. JS claimed perfect accuracy in his revealed “scriptures”.

Although the below was directed to Oliver Cowdery it communicated the way in which the words were finalized in the translation process, which would indeed be drawn from the persons existing knowledge set.

D&C 9: 7-8
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but there are manuscripts in the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) for all the books of the Bible, dating back to very early times. AFAIK no “originals” exist, but copies from close to the time that the originals would have been written. Now, translations of these documents can vary depending on the competency of the translator and the methods used to translate, but that is a very different matter from what you are charging.

I’m not talking about the actual act of translating documents; I’m talking about the removal of verses from the various translations or editions from the past three hundred years or so. If you examine the various translations, from old to new, you see differences. For example the King James Translation is short now by about 25% than it was originally. Also there are some bibles that have more books than the standard 66, as I’m sure you are aware of. So when I ask the question “which” Bible, I am saying there is more than one, all having their own axe to grind.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Examples, please.

 

[Paul_G]

Examples, please.

I believe I gave one, could you be more specific.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not talking about the actual act of translating documents; I’m talking about the removal of verses from the various translations or editions from the past three hundred years or so. If you examine the various translations, from old to new, you see differences. For example the King James Translation is short now by about 25% than it was originally. Also there are some bibles that have more books than the standard 66, as I’m sure you are aware of. So when I ask the question “which” Bible, I am saying there is more than one, all having their own axe to grind.

Paul

Are you referring to the Deuterocanonical books?