120 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

The expression “offender for a word” comes from Isaiah 29:21 KJV, which says:

  “That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

  The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably. However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court. It is not referring to a word used by an innocent person that others use against them or that others claim to find offensive. The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

  

• “who by a word make a man out to be an offender” (ESV)
• “those who, with their speech, accuse a person of wrongdoing” (HCSB)
• “those whose mere word condemns a man” (NAB)
• “who cause a person to be indicted by a word” (NASB)
• “those who with a word make a man out to be guilt” (NIV/TNIV)
• “those who incriminate others by their words” (NJB)
• “those who convict the innocent by their false testimony” (NLT)

  
The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 22 March 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[semlogo]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The expression “offender for a word” comes from Isaiah 29:21 KJV, which says:

  “That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

  The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably. However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court. It is not referring to a word used by an innocent person that others use against them or that others claim to find offensive. The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

  

• “who by a word make a man out to be an offender” (ESV)
• “those who, with their speech, accuse a person of wrongdoing” (HCSB)
• “those whose mere word condemns a man” (NAB)
• “who cause a person to be indicted by a word” (NASB)
• “those who with a word make a man out to be guilt” (NIV/TNIV)
• “those who incriminate others by their words” (NJB)
• “those who convict the innocent by their false testimony” (NLT)

  
The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

I think the problem is we're still, most of us, reading the KJV. It's really a terrible translation. I mean it's beautiful, but very poor as far getting the original meaning across.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

Popular? Out side of Dan's book I had hardly considered the experssion much less ever used it. I think Dan and Pahoran are the 2 that use it the most nad it is generally in reference to those that think the LDS are not Christians.


Interesting Rob, but I think your effort here is a bit mis-guided, but it is interesting none the less.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court.

You mean like Evangelicals claiming Mormons aren't Christian?

Or by saying that "Melchizedek Priesthood" isn't found in any ancient documents?

Stuff like that?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 22 March 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

Popular? Out side of Dan's book I had hardly considered the experssion much less ever used it. I think Dan and Pahoran are the 2 that use it the most nad it is generally in reference to those that think the LDS are not Christians.

Well, that would be a misuse of the expression as far as its meaning in the context of Isaiah 29 is concerned. Is your defense that the misuse isn't that bad because it isn't as commonly misused as I claimed?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Mola,

You wrote:



Well, that would be a misuse of the expression as far as its meaning in the context of Isaiah 29 is concerned. Is your defense that the misuse isn't that bad because it isn't as commonly misused as I claimed?

No, my main objection is that it is not a popular term (I know, slight quibble). Any way I am interested in a response from DCP or Pahoran. They might have more an issue with what you brought up than I. I am under no obligation to defend their use of the statement.

[Rob Bowman]

semlogo,

Well, in defense of the KJV, it's a model of scholarship from its time, 400 years ago this year. However, its language is four centuries old, biblical manuscript discoveries have refined our knowledge of the original text, and we have learned quite a bit about Hebrew and Greek and about the ancient cultures in which the biblical writings were produced, so modern translations can improve on the KJV from those angles. But I wouldn't denigrate the KJV; I have the utmost respect for the work the translators did.

semlogo, on 22 March 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

I think the problem is we're still, most of us, reading the KJV. It's really a terrible translation. I mean it's beautiful, but very poor as far getting the original meaning across.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 22 March 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

No, my main objection is that it is not a popular term (I know, slight quibble).

Indeed.

You wrote:

Quote

Any way I am interested in a response from DCP or Pahoran. They might have more an issue with what you brought up than I. I am under no obligation to defend their use of the statement.

Of course you aren't.

[SilverKnight]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably.

CFR that this phrase is in 'usual LDS use' at all.

I never heard of it before Dan Peterson's book.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

SilverKnight, on 22 March 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

CFR that this phrase is in 'usual LDS use' at all.

I never heard of it before Dan Peterson's book.

I didn't say all or most Mormons use it. What I said was that when they do use it, this is the "usual LDS use" of it.

I checked LDS Library 2006, and it found over 140 occurrences of the expression "offender(s) for a word" in its database of conservative LDS literature, and what I said was the usual use of the expression does seem to be the way nearly all of the occurrences took it. For example, it is how Joseph Fielding Smith used it (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:104, 130), as well as B. H. Roberts (New Witnesses for God, 3:112) and Robert L. Millet (Selected Writings, 305, 322). It is how the expression is defined in the Book of Mormon Reference Companion. Only Victor Ludlow seems to have used it correctly ("deliberately lie about others," Isaiah, 272). Hoyt W. Brewster describes three types of offenses, all of which fit my description of the usual LDS usage: "In one possible meaning, this phrase could apply to those who are offended because of their interpretation of another's words, even though no offense may have been intended. Another possibility is situations where one may make an offhand, perhaps even insensitive, remark that others turn into a great offense. The phrase could also apply to those who deliberately misconstrue or lie about another's words. All of these possibilities run counter to the repeated counsel in the scriptures to forgive, forget, and avoid faultfinding" (Isaiah Plain and Simple, 173). Oh, and it is also how Joseph Smith used the expression (Teachings, 124).

Will that do?

Edited by Rob Bowman, 22 March 2011 - 02:23 PM.

[SilverKnight]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

Will that do?

That will do nicely. Thanks.

I would only add that the term, and the "usual LDS" understanding of it, is rarely heard in mormonism and evidently topic of little interest within the LDS faith.
If you're looking to score rhetorical points you may not get much resistance in this case.

Edited by SilverKnight, 22 March 2011 - 02:41 PM.

[LeSellers]

Some points to consider.

First, we Saints use scriptures differently from most Christians. We follow the admonition of Nephi: we liken  all scriptures unto ourselves. Just because Isaiah made his statement as he did does not mean that the idea of making a man an offender for a word is not a valid concept. The idea that our use of the title "Christian" as we do rather than as you do does not make us wrong (offenders).

Second, Isaiah was warning against misrepresenting a "poor man" (the Hebrew here is "adam", the "ruddy [one]"—why this is "poor" here is a mystery to me) while he is pleading his case in court (the gates). Extending this to other, similar, situations, is hardly a misuse of the phrase, no matter how literally translated. When you claim we are not Christians, you are misrepresenting us.

Third, the use of scripture in circumstances other than the one the original writer had in mind is of hoary origin. Matthew applied many Old Testament passages to Christ (e.g., "out of Egypt have I called my son" and "a virgin shall conceive ...") that did not meet your criterion here. Why is it fine for Matthew but wrong for B.H. Roberts or Daniel Peterson?

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 22 March 2011 - 03:40 PM.

[The Nehor]

Some people forget that some mistranslations are better that way.

[Pahoran]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The expression “offender for a word” comes from Isaiah 29:21 KJV, which says:

  “That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

  The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably. However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court. It is not referring to a word used by an innocent person that others use against them or that others claim to find offensive. The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

  

• “who by a word make a man out to be an offender” (ESV)
• “those who, with their speech, accuse a person of wrongdoing” (HCSB)
• “those whose mere word condemns a man” (NAB)
• “who cause a person to be indicted by a word” (NASB)
• “those who with a word make a man out to be guilt” (NIV/TNIV)
• “those who incriminate others by their words” (NJB)
• “those who convict the innocent by their false testimony” (NLT)

  
The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

So it does.

That is -- it might, if there was an attempt to exegete the passage in question to represent the author's intention to be something other than it was.

However, that is not what is in view.

What is in view, when we use this phrase in casual conversation, is the use of a modern expression that derives from the Bible.

There are a great many such modern expressions.  Their value is not based upon accuracy, but upon applicability.

And besides: as 1 Nephi 19:23 demonstrates, the ancient method of reading scriptures was not to try to "recover the author's original intention."  That is a modern conceit that is surprisingly inauthentic.  The ancients understood the scriptures by applying them to their own situations.

And finally: whether anti-Mormon outfits such as Gospel Truths Ministries "The Institute for Religious Research" make us "offenders for a word" in the modern sense by blowing a gasket when we have the temerity to admit that we are Christians, or whether they do it in the original sense by finding flimsy pretexts upon which to hang accusations against our prophets, they are unquestionably still doing it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[SkepticTheist]

So, what phrase would you like us to use to refer to the situation in question, where a person is misunderstanding or misusing something that one says?  It doesn't change the fact that that scenario happens.
Your clarification is a good one in the sense that perhaps we hadn't thought of the technical meaning of the phrase.
Your bringing it up is a quibble in the sense that we are trying to communicate that such a scenario actually happens and you are fault finding with the LDS for using a *small phrase* from the scripture out of context.

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The expression “offender for a word” comes from Isaiah 29:21 KJV, which says:

  “That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

  The usual LDS use of this expression is in reference to those who take unnecessary offense at others because of something they say that the offended person interprets uncharitably. However, this usage distorts its meaning in Isaiah 29:21. The “word” is something said by a wicked person to get someone else in legal trouble, to rob that person of justice in court. It is not referring to a word used by an innocent person that others use against them or that others claim to find offensive. The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

  

• “who by a word make a man out to be an offender” (ESV)
• “those who, with their speech, accuse a person of wrongdoing” (HCSB)
• “those whose mere word condemns a man” (NAB)
• “who cause a person to be indicted by a word” (NASB)
• “those who with a word make a man out to be guilt” (NIV/TNIV)
• “those who incriminate others by their words” (NJB)
• “those who convict the innocent by their false testimony” (NLT)

  
The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

[calmoriah]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

I didn't say all or most Mormons use it.

You did say it was "popular".

Quote

The popular LDS defensive tactic

[Mark Beesley]

Rob Bowman, on 22 March 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

The popular LDS defensive tactic of throwing up the phrase “offenders for a word” when someone disagrees with their doctrine misuses this text of Scripture.

What phrase should we use to describe someone who, in an attempt to score cheap polemical points, overstates the use of an obscure biblical text by one of two of his detractors?  Intellectually bankrupt?

[Mark Beesley]

calmoriah, on 22 March 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

You did say it was "popular".

Maybe he meant that since Dr. Peterson is a popular LDS apologist, then his use of the term makes it popular . . . ??? Who knows how these guys think?  

[urroner]

So Rob, is this anything similar to the Evangelical popular misuse and abuse of the the phrase "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church?"

Edited by urroner, 23 March 2011 - 04:25 AM.

[AmorLibertas]

Critic: Most Mormons who use the scriptural phrase "offenders for a word" do so without understanding the correct meaning of the phrase (which causes them to look uneducated or foolish in the eyes of Christian apologists and other Bible scholars).  This is something which Mormon apologists might easily avoid in the future by coming to understand the proper meaning of the KJV translation.

Mormon Apologists: We can use the phrase however we want even if we don't use it correctly according to the original meaning of the text, and our critics should stop finding fault with our creativity since people have been taking scriptures out of context even since New Testament times.  Our creative interpretation is just as valid, if not moreso, than the scholarly literary translation and anything you might say to the contrary is simply making us offenders for a word (our meaning, not yours), so there.