DiscussMormonism.com

Scott H. Faulring and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: Electronic Library

* line by line typographic transcriptions of all the relevant manuscripts, preserving spelling, punctuation, strike-outs, etc.

* various studies, including historical introductions to each manuscript

* high-resolution images of the earliest manuscripts and original documents

* WordCruncher search capacity

Any idea why they went with a video on this instead of publication?

How long is the film?

Kevin Graham wrote:Any idea why they went with a video on this instead of publication?

How long is the film?

Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking. It's not a film. It's a computer disk.

It includes, for example, the entire 851-page book Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts, edited by Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and the late Robert J. Matthews.

Is the reason why the Salt Lake City-based LDS church doesn't use the Joseph Smith Translation because the Reorganized church owns the copyright?

Dr. Shades wrote:Is the reason why the Salt Lake City-based LDS church doesn't use the Joseph Smith Translation because the Reorganized church owns the copyright?

I think that's part of the reason, but could be wrong. Actually, Robert Matthews and Bruce McConkie, I'm told, waged a decades-long campaign to overcome suspicion in the Utah church against the JST, because the JST was thought to have been corrupted in some way by the then-RLDS. Professor Matthews demonstrated that that wasn't true, that the concerns were groundless.

I think it's reasonably well accepted in the Church these days, and has been for quite a while now.

You do know, I assume, that excerpts from the JST, some of them substantial, were incorporated into the current LDS edition of the KJV a number of years ago as notes to the text and in appendices.

Dr. Shades wrote:Is the reason why the Salt Lake City-based LDS church doesn't use the Joseph Smith Translation because the Reorganized church owns the copyright?

That couldn't be the reason--everything that was written in that time period is now in the public domain. Just as the LDS Church is free to publish the writings of Charles Dickens if it wanted to, it is free to publish the JST.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Kevin Graham wrote:Any idea why they went with a video on this instead of publication?

How long is the film?

Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking. It's not a film. It's a computer disk.

A result of cuts to the MI's budget, I guess?

Doctor Scratch wrote:A result of cuts to the MI's budget, I guess?

ROTFL.

Yup. Sure. Just as the Oxford English Dictionary would have been made into a video, if only Oxford had had the cash.

You're a loon, Scratch.

It's much more useful in the form it's in -- that of a searchable database -- than it would be as a movie.

I'm sure you can understand my confusion. (There's no need for hostility, Dr. Peterson.) First you said it was a "DVD," then you said it was a "computer disk," and now you're saying something else. Well, what is it? Are you so out of the loop at the Maxwell Institute that you don't know? Or has this project been changing so frequently that it's been very difficult to know *at all* what it's status is/was?

Some DVD's that didn't quite make the final MI cut...

Seven Brides For One Brother

Men In White

Saving Private Dunn

Apocalypse Soon

Silencing The Lambs