Radio Free Mormon: 187: ?????Borrowed Robes??????????The JST?????s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

[_Shulem]

I am also just now receiving information that the idea Egyptians practiced human sacrifice, though erroneous by contemporary standards, was also mentioned in Adam clarke's Bible commentary.

Ask and ye shall receive.



Let's take a peek and see what we find, the third sampling is of particular interest:

I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh -

Diodorus Siculus, lib. i., gives the same account of the ancient constitution of Egypt. "The land," says he, "was divided into three parts:

One belonged to the Priests, with which they provided all sacrifices, and maintained all the ministers of religion.

As it is well known that the Nile was a chief object of Egyptian idolatry, (See Clarke's note on Exodus 7:15;), and that annually they sacrificed a girl, or as others say, both a boy and a girl, to this river, in gratitude for the benefits received from it, (Universal Hist., vol. i., p. 178, fol. edit).

Plutarch assures us, De Iside et Osiride, that in several cities of Egypt they were accustomed to sacrifice human beings to Typhon, which they burned alive upon a high altar; and at the close of the sacrifice the priests gathered the ashes of these victims, and scattered them in the air:

I tend to think that Joseph Smith assumed that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice along with their idolatry. He also made the assumption that a black person is a slave just because they're black. He made Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 into a slave by chopping off his powerful snout and assuming the appearance of an African man figure would turn him into a slave when he knew damn well he was more than that. Smith really pulled a fast one in doing that. But, I busted him on that and more shall be revealed in time.

[_Shulem]

Example #8

I have a complaint!

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

But what did Adam Clarke have to say?

made his complaint against Israel

So who did Joseph Smith copy?

he maketh complaint to God against Israel

[_Shulem]

Example #9

God doesn't love you but Christ does!

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren

The Bible copies the Book of Mormon by declaring that God himself loves us and will come down and die: "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men" (Mosiah 15:1)

1. God loves us and comes down to die for us.
2. We too should die for each other just like God did.

But wait! What did Adam Clarke say about "God" dying for us?

Here the apostle says, We perceive, εγνωκαμεν, we have known, the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. Of God is not in the text, but it is preserved in one MS., and in two or three of the versions; but though this does not establish its authenticity, yet του Θεου, of God, is necessarily understood, or του Χριστου, of Christ, as Erpen's Arabic has it; or αυτου εις ἡμας, his love to us, as is found in the Syriac.

So, what did Smith do after reading Clarke's version of the Bible? Did he take Clarke's recommendation or go with the Book of Mormon?

Hereby perceive we the love of Christ because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Sorry God, but Christ supersedes you. You're OUT!

[_Shulem]

Example #10

From past tense to future tense.

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Note -- they "perished" as in the past tense.

But what if anything did Clarke's header say about this verse in his general description of the contents of Jude (1-25)?

The false teachers particularly described: they are like brute beasts, going the way of Cain, run after the error of Balaam, and shall perish, as did Korah in his gainsaying

QUESTION: Did Smith stick with the Bible or did he adopt Clarke's personal (non-canonical) introduction in explaining the chapter of Jude?

If you guessed that Smith took Clarke's private interpretation, you're correct!

Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and shall perish in the gainsaying of Core.

Let's see what other versions of the Bible have to offer for verse 11 and we discover that unlike Smith (plagiarizer) they all go with the past tense:

21st Century KJV: perished in the gainsaying of Korah
American Standard Version: perished in the gainsaying of Korah
Amplified Bible: perished in the rebellion of [mutinous] Korah.
BRG Bible: perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Christian Standard Bible: perished in Korah’s rebellion
Common English Bible: destroyed in the uprising of Korah
Complete Jewish Bible destroyed in the rebellion of Korach
Contemporary English Version: they will be destroyed
Darby Translation: perished in the gainsaying of Core
Disciples' Literal Translation: perished in the rebellion of Korah
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: perished in the contradiction of Core

Etc

CONCLUSION: Smith copied from Clark's personal commentary! He's been caught red-handed stealing from Clarke! This is proof positive.

Thief!

[_Shulem]

THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS INTRODUCTION TO REVELATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS: VOLUME 4

When revising the Bible, Smith worked with a copy of the King James Version, apparently with no other instrument at hand. Some revisions, like minor grammatical changes, may well have been considered to be the result of human reason rather than divine revelation. A subset of the changes appears to be the result of an attempt to harmonize differences among the gospels or other scriptures, and evidence also suggests that Smith and his scribes consulted Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary as they considered the text.

That ties it. Joseph Smith did in fact steal from Clarke because the evidence is absolutely conclusive in this regard. It's about time the Church admits it. Isn't that right, RFM? You need to know your JST!

The problem with Smith stealing from Clarke is that he never gave him any credit or reference in that regard. Smith assumed that since he was the prophet he could do whatever he wanted and didn't have to answer to anyone. He could steal a Bible translation or a spiritual clause and assume as if he was the author. If he wanted your wife, you politely hand her over. If he wants your cherry-like 14 year old daughter then you hand her over too and warn your 12 year old that she may be next.

That's Mormonism. Bow before the prophet and do anything and everything he says or be damned!

[_Shulem]

Some revisions, like minor grammatical changes, may well have been considered to be the result of human reason rather than divine revelation.

What? Human reason? Human reason is sufficient enough to CHANGE the Bible!

:surprised:

The Inspired version of the Bible is SUPPOSE to be an "inspired" work in it's entirety. But now we learn that Smith may have been turning his revelation ON and OFF throughout his translation process -- just like a light switch.

I think the Church is saying this just to get them off the hook as things appear to show just how UNINSPIRED Smith was. He was inspired and sometimes he wasn't which reminds me of Peter Paul candy bars when sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.

So, now it boils down to the inspired mind coupled with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit vs. human reasoning.

Way to go, Mormon Church.

:rolleyes:

[_Shulem]

Example #11

From (the) definite article to pronoun

. . . . Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Well, okay. But whose left? Is it Jesus's left or the son's left?

What does Clarke say?

One on thy right hand, and the other on (Thy) left - I have added the pronoun in the latter clause on the authority of almost every MS. and version of repute.

Sure enough, Smith took Clarke's advice and changed it to a pronoun. It didn't take a revelation. It's just copying what the other person is saying and then calling it the "Joseph Smith Translation":

. . . . Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.

[_Shulem]

Example #12

Is Matthew's testimony stronger than Mark's?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Shame on Mark for not including Peter's two-bit "Son of the living God". That was extremely rude of Mark to omit that from the record. For Shame!

Nevertheless, Adam Clarke to the rescue!

Thou art the Christ - Three MSS. and some versions add, the Son of the living God.

So what did Joseph do? He did exactly what Clarke told him to do:

And Peter answered and said unto him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Folks, this is not rocket science. Neither is it revelation! It's Joseph Smith copying and stealing information from someone else by failing to give them credit.

Revelation, my ass!

[_consiglieri]

We know Joseph passed on translating the Apocrypha, even receiving a revelation it was not needful. We also know Adam Clarke's Commentary doesn't cover the Apocrypha. What are the odds these two facts are not a coincidence?

[_Shulem]

We know Joseph passed on translating the Apocrypha, even receiving a revelation it was not needful. We also know Adam Clarke's Commentary doesn't cover the Apocrypha. What are the odds these two facts are not a coincidence?

SECTION 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord JOSEPH SMITH unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, (BUT I CANNOT SAY WHAT THEY ARE BECAUSE ADAM CLARKE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT) which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated (Bible! A Bible! WE HAVE GOT A Bible, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY MORE Bible).

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it (HAVE AT IT BUT I'M NOT HELPING YOU), let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; (BUT COUNT ME OUT)

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated (BECAUSE ADAM CLARKE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT AND BRO OLIVER DOESN'T KNOW THE WORKS). Amen.