Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[_Albion]

I think you are stretching the point. Obviously translation can loosely be defined as an interpretation but when you describe his bodge job as a "translation" you imply some greater scholarship in language that Smith simply did not have. He did not go back to ancient manuscripts in ancient languages, he simply took the KJV and adapted it to fit his theology. If you are going to put his version up as a valid version of scripture it is an insult to genuine translations to refer to Smith's work as a translation when that term is an essential part of Biblical veracity.

[_jo1952]

I think you are stretching the point. Obviously translation can loosely be defined as an interpretation but when you describe his bodge job as a "translation" you imply some greater scholarship in language that Smith simply did not have. He did not go back to ancient manuscripts in ancient languages, he simply took the KJV and adapted it to fit his theology. If you are going to put his version up as a valid version of scripture it is an insult to genuine translations to refer to Smith's work as a translation when that term is an essential part of Biblical veracity.

Hmmm....aren't you the one who told me you aren't interested in anything extra Biblical? Aren't you being hyprocritical then to accuse someone else of NOT studying anything extra Biblical?

The "bodge job" is your opinion. Since you are the one who is throwing out most of the New Testatment because it doesn't fit into your own belief system, and offer no other excuse than Jesus is sufficient, you really don't give me any reason to even consider your opinion as being credible.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Yes Albion, we are talking people, and glories, and just where do you suppose those three different type persons with three different type glories of resurrected bodies go?! It's no coincidence that three heavens were mentioned also! Wake up Albion. There has already been a restoration!

[_Albion]

gdemetz, there aren't three different type persons mentioned, only different type examples of the difference between earthly flesh and the resurrected body. Three heavens are not mentioned. Sun, moon and stars are mentioned to demonstrate the difference between the flesh of life and the resurrected body. Again, I think you are desperate to stretch the scripture to fit a false theology that you have already determined is true.

[_Albion]

gdemetz, there aren't three different type persons mentioned, only different type examples of the difference between earthly flesh and the resurrected body. Three heavens are not mentioned. Sun, moon and stars are mentioned to demonstrate the difference between the flesh of life and the resurrected body. Again, I think you are desperate to stretch the scripture to fit a false theology that you have already determined is true.

[_Albion]

Jo, I am not sure what your point about extra Biblical theology has to do with the subject of whether or not Smith actually translated (used in the sense of one language to another) or merely rephrased. In reality he in his version of the Bible he does add extra Biblical theology such as prophecies about himself. Mormons can argue all they wish about his work not being finished but if subsequent leaders are the prophets they claim to be, just like Smith, it would have been a simple matter for them to finish it...especially since Smith claimed an imperative from God for him to do so. I submit that the real reason his version isn't used is because Smith's scholarship would clearly be held up to ridicule by the scholastic world. Even in limited use this is exactly the case.

[_Albion]

Rereading your post perhaps I did miss the point you were making. I am, however, meaning the earliest know manuscripts of the Bible were not used by Smith in his translation . The NIV is probably the most widely used modern translation of the Bible and as its foreword says: "The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts." In this sense what Smith did was not strictly speaking a translation...at best it was his interpretation. If he was inspired, I wonder why God did not inspire him to use current English in his version rather than archaic, outdated language not in common use.

[_jo1952]

Jo, I am not sure what your point about extra Biblical theology has to do with the subject of whether or not Smith actually translated (used in the sense of one language to another) or merely rephrased. In reality he in his version of the Bible he does add extra Biblical theology such as prophecies about himself. Mormons can argue all they wish about his work not being finished but if subsequent leaders are the prophets they claim to be, just like Smith, it would have been a simple matter for them to finish it...especially since Smith claimed an imperative from God for him to do so. I submit that the real reason his version isn't used is because Smith's scholarship would clearly be held up to ridicule by the scholastic world. Even in limited use this is exactly the case.

Albion,

I have not argued of whether his work was finished on the translation of the KJV of the Bible. In fact, in his personal writings there is evidence he felt the work was done. I am not concerned with what scholars would have to say. They have always argued over all of the Bible long before Joseph Smith was even born; and still do today. More importantly, scholars are not the source of spiritual Truth.

What you keep avoiding to address is how it is necessary for you to throw away the majority of the New Testament in order to hang on to your belief. Why are you avoiding this? Yet you are happy to tell us what is wrong with our beliefs while you do not defend your own.

You tell me that accepting Christ is enough, because Jesus is sufficient. It does not seem to concern you to try to learn about what Jesus, as a Hebrew, believed and understood as scripture in whatever had been revealed to the Jews (and now I'm not even sure if you are concerned with the Old Testament AS scripture because you keep answering "Jesus is sufficient"; so it appears you don't think it is necessary to really understand ANY of the Bible because your acceptance of Christ has saved you). It was not Jews who made the decision of what to canonize; it was men who claimed to be Christian. But these Christian men chose only the temporal teachings of the Jews - at that, they used the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint (it is the Septuagint which is more accurate; and it is the Septuagint which both Jesus and the Apostles would refer to and quote from in the New Testament). Those men purposely chose to NOT include the higher and spiritual teachings of the Jews. You do not, therefore, know what Jesus believed. You also do not concern yourself with Jesus' teaching that it would be the Holy Spirit who would lead you All Truth. You have stopped any progress you can make in being spiritually enlightened. In so doing, the Holy Spirit cannot do what Jesus promised the Spirit would do.

You are the one who indicated Joseph Smith should have educated himself on extra Biblical material. But you, yourself, don't even include what is currently in the Bible within your belief system. Additionally you specifically claimed it was not necessary for you to know about extra Biblical material even though you think Joseph Smith should have sought out extra Blbical material. This is why I said you were being hypocritical.

When you tell us that Jesus is sufficient, and then go on to argue about interpretations in the Bible, you are not manifesting to us that Jesus IS sufficient. If you were being consistent with your belief that Jesus is sufficient, you would find no need to argue about the interpretation of any passages in the Bible. The moment you argue about interpretations, then you are abandoning your belief that Jesus is sufficient, because you are then adding requirements which are beyond believing that Jesus is sufficient. In other words, you are contradicting yourself.

What I have seen is that you will argue about our interpretation of Scripture until you get to a point where you are unable to defend your interpretation. At that point, you repeat your mantra that Jesus is sufficient.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

Rereading your post perhaps I did miss the point you were making. I am, however, meaning the earliest know manuscripts of the Bible were not used by Smith in his translation . The NIV is probably the most widely used modern translation of the Bible and as its foreword says: "The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts." In this sense what Smith did was not strictly speaking a translation...at best it was his interpretation. If he was inspired, I wonder why God did not inspire him to use current English in his version rather than archaic, outdated language not in common use.

Albion,

I appreciate that you have reviewed and reread my post. I would ask you this. Why would a Prophet need to read and study the works of worldly scholars when the messages he is revealing are coming straight from God? Did the Old Testament Prophets need to know and/or rely upon the teachings of the Prophets who came before them? I think that if they mentioned the prophecies of Prophets before them that it was God who was actually revealing their accuracy to the current Prophet. Daniel didn't even understand the prophecies which God gave him and instructed him to record. As such, no amount of Daniel's trying to research what scholars might have been teaching would have made any difference in what Daniel recorded.

Wondering why God did or didn't do something is trying to second guess God. The NIV sounds like a lot of honest effort went into it. I am sure that many people will, therefore, choose it to be their Bible of choice. However, it will still be the Holy Spirit who will lead the readers of the NIV to All Truth. Neither the NIV or any other Bible (not even the JST) has the power to do that.

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

Jo, I don't really know how many times I have to repeat this but simply put, good works, study, spiritual growth, attending church, etc., etc., are all important in the life of a believer...of course they are....but they do not save. Only faith, belief, trust in Jesus saves. Good works, all the other stuff are the signs of the saving experience that has taken place in the believer. Good works with all that it encompasses will never earn you salvation or impress God who describes all our effort as "filthy rags". The saved sinner who died thirty seconds after being saves is no less saved than the saved individual who has spent a lifetime in study and keeping the law. he may have more knowledge gain in a life experience but he is no more saved. "...God will credit righteousness for us who believe..." and "... now a righteousness from God, apart from law (small l so not specifically The Law) has been made known...." Any righteousness we acquire is received from God, imputed to us because of our faith in Jesus his Son. As a helpless sinner, I have nothing to offer God except my trust and reliance on Jesus his Son. All I can do is to appeal to God's amazing grace through Jesus who has done everything necessary for my salvation. He is sufficient means there is nothing else of value that can accomplish what he has already done...nothing, no list of hoops you are required to jump through, no works, it all rests in Jesus alone. How many times must scripture plainly state "trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".....this is repeated over and over.....

I have tried, perhaps not well, to convey the Christian position which Mormons so often mischaracterize in their attacks on it. You can accept or reject it because God gave us the wonderful principle of free choice but never doubt that you have been a recipient of God's prevenient grace and you will never know full satisfaction in faith and life outside the reality that Jesus paid it all.