this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

And it is the New Testament, not the Old Testament, translations that are controversial, and more important in terms of doctrine.

I'm not certain the observation about textual criticisms of the First Testament are without merit, we simply are more removed from the original texts, and the autographs are likely rewrites of oral traditions. The Hebrew Bible is subject to the same sort of scrutiny. Because the Greek Second Testament contains the newer covenant, we tend to focus upon the textual criticism of its verses, because the exercise became more heated and we are closer to the original autographs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Mike Waters

by the way, Tex, I think it's pretty safe to say, that practically speaking, the church has rejected the JST.

Whether for practical reasons (so that we don't have a "different" Bible) or for other reasons, I don't know.

Oh my, you did not just say that. Are you familiar with the Book of Moses? Joseph Smith-Matthew?

The church is far more accepting of the JST today than 40 years ago. We've made huge strides forward in integrating its teachings into our doctrine.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You seem to be saying "We don't need to study the hundreds (thousands) of ancient Greek manuscripts that have been discovered that pre-date those used by the translators of the KJV. If we need to learn anything about the bible, we will just rely on revelation." That's just nuts. And I don't believe that is how God operates. He expects us to use our heads.

Mmmm, I think I said just that. (Joseph Smith spent time studying, etc.) Even the Lord criticizes taking "no thought save to ask me." I just think leaders are rightfully cautious in jumping to newer translations, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the disharmony between them. The KJV, regardless of how inelegant some of the translation might be, has the benefit of being around for a very long time, and thus is familiar and widely accepted.

I think one of the main reasons we don't switch to the JST (besides copyright problems) is that we have a hard enough time as it is getting folks to accept 3 new books of scripture. Having at least one in common is a benefit.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Don't you find any irony in using this argument to defend a document (KJV) that was translated entirely by non-LDS scholars hundreds of years ago? Translators who were relying on ancient texts and were doing their duty in an attempt to improve on previous translations? Or do you believe that the KJV translators alone were inspired but all of the others were not?

I don't know if the KJV translators were inspired or not. The point on revelation is that it doesn't depend on translation. That is, our doctrine doesn't change depending on what version of the scriptures we use ... changing versions will give us no new doctrinal insight that we previously did not have, because those insights come via revelation.

I didn't mean to imply that one set of translators had more prophetic gift than another.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex, it is amazing what lengths you will go to in order to defend the status quo on EVERYTHING.

This isn't true, but it is the complaint chaos always makes against order. I am always open to change, but I am a fierce defender of church leadership.

[MikeWaters]

On my mission, in the English-speaking part, I don't ever recall running into someone that used the KJV.

Almost all were Catholic.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex is like some kind of a cyborg. I am starting to appreciate the genius of his relentless, picture perfect, unerring, undeviating defense of LDS status quo. He's Boyd K. Packer's cyborg assassin. He's probably all over the Internet and off and on in your Gospel Doctrine classes. Lebowski, Waters, the rest of you progressives, give up. Either bow to Tex or get the hell out. It's like trying to play chess with a computer. He'll finally ground you to dust, after you thought you had him over and over again.

I love posts like these. No, really. Lebowski finds me intimidating. Adam says he's scared of me.

It's like being Darth Vader. SeattleUte, I am your father.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I love posts like these. No, really. Lebowski finds me intimidating. Adam says he's scared of me.

It's like being Darth Vader. SeattleUte, I am your father.

SU is Darth Vader. You are the emperor.

At least there is hope for SU.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

This isn't true, but it is the complaint chaos always makes against order. I am always open to change, but I am a fierce defender of church leadership.

I'm sure there are "common sense" reasons for the LDS church to continue to use the KJV. Nevertheless, the notion that the KJV is "doctrinally more accurate" than other translations is nonsense. This, I believe, is MW's complaint - and mine as well.

LDS leaders, your fierce advocacy aside, would be hard-pressed to justify this stance rationally.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh my, you did not just say that. Are you familiar with the Book of Moses? Joseph Smith-Matthew?

The church is far more accepting of the JST today than 40 years ago. We've made huge strides forward in integrating its teachings into our doctrine.

The Church canonized JS-M and Moses, but all other parts aren't considered scripture.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Screw the NIV. I've got "Kata Iohannen" right in front of me and verse 24 says "pneuma ho theos."

pneuma ho theos = God is spirit. What's the problem?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The Church canonized JS-M and Moses, but all other parts aren't considered scripture.

The parts in the footnotes and the JST section at the back of the Bible aren't considered scripture? News to me.

The primary reason the JST isn't more integrated into our scriptures or curriculum in greater measure is copyright relations problems with the Community of Christ. The 1970's saw the first LDS scholars (led by Robert Matthews) even getting a chance to examine the original manuscripts in a century, and that was only because the old RLDS church historian had died and the new guy was more friendly to the Church.

Up until that time (and the integration of a large portion--though not all--of the JST into the standard works), the Church was very suspicious of the RLDS version of the JST (published as the "Inspired Version"). Matthews discovered that with few exceptions, their reading and understanding of JS's notations proved correct, and the process of incorporating it into our canon was begun.

There's a long history here that's really worth the membership's time, much moreso, I'd say, than a move to the NIV or some other modern tranlsation. But with apologies, to say JST is not scripture is just uninformed.

[Clark Addison]

Originally Posted by Tex

The parts in the footnotes and the JST section at the back of the Bible aren't considered scripture? News to me.

That's a good question (or rather, a question I don't know the answer to). Are the footnotes and ending section considered scripture? I had always assumed that they were there for reference, much like the alternate translations from Greek.

I don't have a strong feeling on this either way, I just always assumed that they weren't.