Saturday, July 11, 2009

Just think if he had finished it?

As part of his "prophetic" calling, Joseph Smith took it upon himself to retranslate the Bible, which is odd since he had as far as I know no original text to translate from and no ability in Greek or Hebrew. Smith died in a shoot out before he could finish his "translation" of the Bible, leaving us only fragments of his handiwork to give us a glimpse into what would have happened if he had the time to completely rewrite the Word of God. Aaron Shafovaloff on Facebook pointed out one example of what sort of shenanigans Smith tried pulling in "re-translating" Hebrews 7:3. Here it is in the original KJV:

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Here is the "Joseph Smith" translation of the same text (emphasis in original):

For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

Notice how he inserts language to change Melchizidek from a unique type of Christ, a sign of what was to come and makes a whole priesthood order out of him thus propping up the heretical notion of a contemporary human "Melchizidek priesthood". Thankfully, Smith didn't complete his work of butchering the Bible and mormons today at least have a glimmer of the original truth in their otherwise completely false "Scriptures".


Richard Johnson said...

Joseph Smith used the power and Gifts of God to translate the Bible, New Translation. Joseph was murdered, there was no shoot-out planed. He left more then fragments, obviously you have not read his translation in much depth. Actually it was more then a glimpse, just this one added translation has been a huge blessing in restoring a lost Priesthood. Aaron Shafovaloff is a sensationalist, ask any Mormon who posts. As far as Melchizedek, we find that Creedal Christians love to believe in concepts and precepts, CREEDS, and could care less about what the Scriptures really state.


Arthur Sido said...

Richard, how was he translating? What was he translating from? The original text in Hebrew and Greek? Or was it more reasonable to say that he was just making it up as he went, kind of like how he "translated" the papyri that have been shown to be a farce?

If there was not a shoot-out planned, why did he have a gun smuggled in? Whether planned or not, Smith died in a gun battle. It was unjust and illegal yes, but a gun battle regardless unlike the Mountain Meadows massacre.

You miss the entire point of the post. Smith added material to the New Testament to change the meaning from what it actually says to what he wants it to say. There is no "Melchizidek priesthood" in the New Testament because Christ and Christ alone is our great high priest. The need for human priests and physical temples was eliminated at the cross. You cannot find the mormon priesthood in the Bible because it is not there and runs contrary to what is there. That is why Smith added it in, to bolster his claims as a "prophet" to deceive people. As long as Christ reigns, the priesthood is not lost.

Richard Johnson said...

The same way he translated the BOM, by revealed inspiration. Making it up as he went is for you to decide, why would you ask a TBM that question?
The Papyri, if you study Ancient Semitic Writings, is most likely right on. Again your entitled to consider it a farce, if you have not read it completely, The Pearl of Grate Price, then you are limited to what others have revealed to you as their theory, or opinion, but if you did read it, then you must decide if it has merit or not.

Murder is murder, and it was pre-meditated murder. manipulating the evidence does not change the facts. Bring in the MM massacre is a deflection away from the issue, and serves no purpose, a non-issue to Joseph Murder.

You say he added, we say it was lost or left out.
You say the Bible is inerrant, we say that is easy to prove as being in error. Your problem is your inability to allow God to reveal continuous revelation, and have decided the Bible is the final word, hence stating what God can and cannot do.


Arthur Sido said...

Richard, I have read the whole PGP. I used to be a mormon so I kinda had to. Can you cite a single credible source that is not a mormon that would agree that the papyri are an accurate translation? Neither of us are experts in the field of linguistics but people who are (and are not employed in some capacity by the mormon church) have recognized it as a fraud.

God has revealed Himself, completely and sufficiently in the Scriptures. Ongoing revelation, as you call them, that contradict the Bible are heresy. Either the Bible is right or Joseph Smith is right, they are mutually exclusive because they teach contradictory doctrines. Consider these words in the book of Hebrews and ask why we would want or need a "prophet" in these days...

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
(Heb 1:1-2)

Richard Johnson said...

Congratulations on reading the PofGP, Now what is your take on the Fragments? are you one of those who believes that these are the scrolls talked about that were used to translate the BOA, or do you understand that we have always stated they are funeral text or the Book of Breathings a common script placed with Mummies as a burial scroll. Yes, Joseph did translate the fragments, never claimed the were a autograph of Abraham. Research has proofed they were written several thousand years after Abraham.

Now you say they are not accurate, can you provide enough Egyptologist that even agree with each other on the exact translation, good luck.

If it is a fraud, then why can't they even agree amongst themselves of its true translation? Hmmm, interesting.

You again fail miserably to prove that Mormon Doctrine does not correlate well with the Scriptures, Bible, if it's the saving ordinance of Baptism, then prove it is not required? Prove that the Triune Trinity is a doctrine of the bible.
Prove that earth was created in six days, prove Ex Nihilo.
Show where the word Rapture is ever used, or that it is some kind of correct translation?

Your last statement is a false, after Christ was crucified, revelation in the NT was still being spoken, so how does that hold up with your statement that all ended with Christ?
Did not the Apostles speak revelation, and scripture?
Hmmm, what say you?


Arthur Sido said...


You said:

"Yes, Joseph did translate the fragments, never claimed the were a autograph of Abraham. Research has proofed they were written several thousand years after Abraham."

Really, because this is from the LDS webpage and is what is written in my quad and I am sure written in your quad.

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351"

Written by his own hand.

So if you are correct and these documents were written several thousand years after Abraham, why do your Scriptures state that they were written by his own hand?

I will address your other questions later today, but you may want to read up on your own beliefs before defending them.

Richard Johnson said...

You never answered my question, if you consider the fragments to be the Book of Abraham, that is the first issue we need to get out of the way. If you want to discuss the scrolls that were destroed in the Boston Museum fire that is another issue. So what is it, then we will delve into the issue of who, what, and when of the Book of Abraham, please be more specific.


Arthur Sido said...

Those fragments are clearly the basis for the book of Abraham, which coupled with Smiths Egyptian Language and grammar demonstrate that Smith was indeed just making it up as he went, with no fear of discovery at that time.

Have you read the book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"? I think it will demonstrate clearly that what Smith claimed was not true. You can get a free copy here:

Arthur Sido said...

Richard, have you spent this time reading that book I recommended?

gloria said...

Have you read the JST on John 1:1??Oh my, he totally changed it!!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the sweeping changes that Joseph Smith made to the Bible. All one has to do is read the bible and compare what the Bible says to the changes Joseph Smith made. He changed the bible!

BTW, I am not a credal christian. I have no creeds but Christ!

God bless,