Nuggets from the NRSV

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because Joseph failed to declare it a finished work, I don't think the doctrinal insights are that important.

Oh, my. Shall we discard the entire Book of Moses?

I don't mean to get quote happy, but much of this is addressed extensively by Matthews. Says he:

The question is often asked, Did Joseph Smith finish the translation of the Bible? Historically, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have held that he did not, and members of the RLDS Church have generally held that he did. Each party can produce statements and give arguments in support of its claim.

The Prophet said on February 2, 1833, that he had "completed the translation and review of the New Testament," and five months later on July 2, 1833, he said he had "finished the translation of the [entire] Bible." Several years later, however, the Prophet spoke of the need for getting the New Translation ready for the press.

He then goes on to lay out the full case for both sides, concluding:

Therefore it appears the the translation of the Bible was "finished" as far as the Prophet intended to go in 1833. In the eleven years that followed, he apparently gained additional knowledge, and therefore an occasional updating or polishing of the manuscript was in order.

I certainly disagree wholeheartedly that the "unfinished" nature of the translation diminishes its doctrinal value. Quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And although you may claim the insertions to be replacements, I really don't find any of the claimed "revealed" passages consistent with current scholarship.

Find me a section which you consider a revealed passage, not commentary.

To this, Matthews says:

Throughout the new translation of the Gospels there are no identifying marks or codes to enable a reader to distinguish between the King James text and the Prophet's additions. Were his additions intended only as personal explanations or commentary, and therefor not equal to existing passages, one would think he was morally bound so to state. However, to phrase the insertions so that they form first-person quotations from Jesus and others is tantamount to a declaration that the new material is to be regarded as equal to any and all the accompanying passages.

I agree with him. He cites the JST additions to Luke 1:3 as an example. He also notes how the changes across the 4 gospels were not uniform, many of them conforming to the style of the writer in question. As an example, Joseph Smith preserved all Old Testament references in Matthew, and added nine others besides (JST Matthew 1:4; 2:1; 3:4,5,6,34; 4:18; 23:39; 27:12). No such entries are made in the other three.

He also adds the phrase "fulness of times" to Luke 3:8, where it is otherwise only found in Ephesians 1:10, thus emphasizing the relationship between the two.

There are others he cites, but that should suffice for now.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Find me evidence of 1 and 2.

3 and 4 I buy, but 1 and 2 I do not. I seem to recall some of the Genesis provisions which may be events not recorded, but I have no perfect recollection of those provisions right now. For the most part, the 'restored' provisions don't provide significant enough insight that Joseph felt the need to complete the work.

I can give you examples of 1 and 2, though not necessarily "evidence" (see previous post). Without the original manuscripts how are we to know what was actually omitted before it was ... well, omitted?