Do you believe Jesus’ words of conversation in John 3:13?

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (more…)

Bible Corrected by Joseph Smith.  I cross those words out.  That was the name in 1999.  Today, Kenneth and Lyndell Lutes title their book, Joseph Smith Translation:  Every Revision in the Old & New Testaments (Orem:  Granite Publishing and Distribution, LLC, 2006).

In 2006, Kenneth and Lyndell write in the preface of this volume: 

Joseph Smith considered the translation to be “part of his divine calling as a prophet of God.”  He accomplished it in about three years, during 1830-1833, and spent the remaining eleven years of his life making improvements.  Although he went through the entire Bible, he did not correct everything, nor was he permitted by God to restore some parts.  However, he did intend to publish what he had done and in fact did print extracts from the translation (vii).

The popular idea that the JST corrects the KJV Bible is alive and prolific in the I-15 corridor.

I am sure that with unflinching confidence, Kenneth will tell you that the JST is the Inspired Version (IV) not the KJV.  And he backs this up with a whopper statement by Bruce R. McConkie:

The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth.

And I doubt that any General Authority in 2007 would publicly disagree with this.

Here are the world famous words of John 3:5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus had a hard time accepting this, and Jesus gave him a jolting rebuke, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”

But where in the Old Testament was Nicodemus to understand these spiritual realities desperately needed for the Jewish people, passages crying out for the solution of an efficacious birth of water and spirit?

As one of the passages that intertwines the (1) spiritual washing for heart cleansing and (2) purging breath for life renewal in the Old Testament, please let me suggest also the study of Isaiah 4.  Personally examine verses 3 and 4 of the chapter.

“And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:  When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”

I have never seen this connection of Isaiah 4 and John 3 proposed by any of the biblical commentaries in my possession.  But that it is not to say that I am introducing something unique and never been proposed by true scholars.  (Most everything that I find as new has already been discussed before.)

I am just excited that the Spirit has lead me this week to some interesting parallels between two chapters that are the central focus of my study and meditation.  How does one enter the kingdom of God in John 3:5?  There must be a supernatural birth of hudatos and pneumatos.  How is one “written among the living” in Isaiah 4:3?  There must be a divine work of rinsing and ruach.

Obviously, a scholar like R.C.H. Lenski would not accept my interpretation of hudatos in John 3:5 severed from literal water baptism, but all can see that his ecclesiology (not his doctrine of justification in soteriology) is heavily entrenched in the Lutheran’s sacramental baptism by sprinkling.

I just read this.

Dated – February 16, 1998. (more…)

In Lost Tribes & Last Days (Deseret Book, 2005), Kent writes:

I recommend that readers turn first to the Bible itself to gain an understanding of Isaiah’s day within the context of the Old Testament. Ideally, the place to start reading is at Genesis 1:1, from which one should read through the end of 2 Chronicles before beginning Isaiah. This 634-page warm-up would provide readers with indispensable background knowledge for understanding Isaiah. The recommendation may sound extreme, but from my experience, those who have paid this price do not find Isaiah to be mysterious, unlike those who pick out a random chapter and attempt to read it. For the historical and political context (and the book of Isaiah is full of history and politics), one should read at least from I Kings through 2 Chronicles before reading Isaiah – a mere 172-page warm-up (83).

I like this particular exhortation. Go for it, friends. Feast on the Word.

Kerry Shirts, alias the Backyard Professor, has posted “Creation Ex Nihilo Ideas.”  As a firm believer in Jehovah who creates ex nihilo, I will get back with Kerry on this.

Thinking of a Christian literalist who has been on the circuit to popularize creationism to the masses in past days, Jared over at LDS Science Review now reports, “Kent Hovind Sentenced to 10 years.”  As I have already typed, I do pray for this man and his wife.

Also, Jared linked me over to Mormons and Evolution with his article “Variant LDS Creationism.”  Is this one of the main blogs that strives to integrate LDS belief with science?

On Common Consent, Kathleen had me intrigued with her post, “Translating Correctly.”

And sort of along the same vein, Matt B. hammers out on Mormon Mentality, “My beef with our cross-referenced standard works, and the questions it raises.”  Notice DKL’s comments in the thread.  I don’t think he would get along very well with KJV-Only Baptists because of his aversion to the traditional translation.  Does he care much for the underlying textus receptus?

Joe Spencer in the Feast Upon the Word blog poses a question that seems to contradict feasting, by asking, “What is the place of historico-critical methodology in LDS teaching?”  If he were to ask the same question to me in the sphere of Bible teaching, I would not hesitate in responding, “Higher criticism though glittering with a cloak of piety attempts to systematically shred fundamental truth by rationale logic but ends up wallowing in individualistic subjectivism.”  But I acknowledge that the science of faith-saturated “lower criticism” is a different breed altogether.

And last of all, Elise’s “Maturing Views of the Sacrament” on Sunstone Blog caught my attention and had me thinking personally about the church ordinance as joyous celebration.  The Lord’s Supper is a visual feasting on the Lord Jesus and His work of glad tidings rather than upon my meager awareness or attempts at personal righteousness.  If I spent the time in communion, remembering my past performance rather than His, I would be a dismal mess on a repeated basis.  Every time I celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the moving picture of His grace, displayed through His blood shed and body broken, drowns out all my sin.  (btw, I did catch Elise’s word choice of “union”.)

Here is the question I asked this week in Idaho Falls:

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Here are forty answers from people who answered in response to my question on the meaning of the words in bold. (more…)

The Second Counselor to President Gordon B. Hinckley is quoted in Latter-Day Commentary on the New Testament: The Four Gospels (American Fork: Covenant Communications, 2002) by Ed J. Pinegar, K. Douglas Bassett, and Ted L. Earl.

In the blowing winds of the intermountain West, James Faust makes the interpretation on John 3:5 distinct and sharp for LDS.

(more…)