12 replies to this topic

[Storm Rider]

I am sure many of you were already aware of this, but the article was interesting to me, find it here.  The article addresses how scholars at the Hebrew University have been working for 53 years to correct the Old Testament.  This is not a recurring topic, but critics continue to have a problem that LDS would dare to question the Bible's translation.  I understand how the masses can be ignorant of biblical research, but when are their leaders going to start talking about the problems that exist?

[The Nehor]

The biblical fundamentalists (this word is being abused by those who use it) who decry our unwillingness to accept the Bible as translated are not generally the same people who are doing these investigations.

[subgenius]

Storm Rider, on 12 August 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

I am sure many of you were already aware of this, but the article was interesting to me, find it here.  The article addresses how scholars at the Hebrew University have been working for 53 years to correct the Old Testament.  This is not a recurring topic, but critics continue to have a problem that LDS would dare to question the Bible's translation.  I understand how the masses can be ignorant of biblical research, but when are their leaders going to start talking about the problems that exist?

I am not sure what "problems" you are referring to, but i found the following two quotes from the linked article most revealing, with particular emphasis on the latter.


"For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable."




"But as soon as the words are given to human beings — with God's agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."

[Storm Rider]

subgenius, on 12 August 2011 - 06:12 AM, said:

I am not sure what "problems" you are referring to, but i found the following two quotes from the linked article most revealing, with particular emphasis on the latter.

"For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable."

"But as soon as the words are given to human beings — with God's agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."

LDS believe the Bible is just as holy as the Book of Mormon.  LDS have always beleived the text to be true as long as it is translated correctly (which could actually be said about all scripture).  This article highlights that translation is a problem with the text and though other churches will attack LDS for thier position on correct translation, scholars have been proving this benefit of such a position for the last 30 years.

[volgadon]

Quote

"For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable."

This is speaking of textual, not interpretive inviolability.

[Franktalk]

I use the Septuagint when I want the original meaning.  Most times I use the KJV just because I love the way it reads.  But when doing research I use the Septuagint.  If some of the quotes from Jesus are from the Septuagint that is confirmation enough for me.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that the current Torah was changed.  Some history there.  But we must be careful when we go back in time.  We do not know if what we have is the best or is the best lost.  I am happy with my choice.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.msnbc.msn...deast_n_africa/

[subgenius]

volgadon, on 12 August 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

This is speaking of textual, not interpretive inviolability.

but it would seem that the Orthodox Jew considers the latter beholden to the former.

[subgenius]

Storm Rider, on 12 August 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

LDS believe the Bible is just as holy as the Book of Mormon.  LDS have always beleived the text to be true as long as it is translated correctly (which could actually be said about all scripture).  This article highlights that translation is a problem with the text and though other churches will attack LDS for thier position on correct translation, scholars have been proving this benefit of such a position for the last 30 years.

thanks.
i think i misunderstood the object of your pronoun in your final sentence in the OP.

[volgadon]

subgenius, on 12 August 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

but it would seem that the Orthodox Jew considers the latter beholden to the former.

The number and placement of letters are considered sacrosanct, but that doesn't mean that they stick completely to it when it comes to uncovering the inner meanings. Even the reading itself has both ketiv (the way a word is written) and keri (the way a word is actually said).

[volgadon]

Franktalk, on 12 August 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I use the Septuagint when I want the original meaning.

It is hardly the original meaning, even though in some cases it is closer to the earliest text than the Masoretic is.

[Robert F. Smith]

Franktalk, on 12 August 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I use the Septuagint when I want the original meaning.  Most times I use the KJV just because I love the way it reads.  But when doing research I use the Septuagint.  If some of the quotes from Jesus are from the Septuagint that is confirmation enough for me.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that the current Torah was changed.  Some history there.  But we must be careful when we go back in time.  We do not know if what we have is the best or is the best lost.  I am happy with my choice.

The New Testament typically quotes using the Septuagint version of the OT, including instances when Jesus is quoting the OT.  However, that doesn't mean that Jesus used Greek.  He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic to the masses, and most likely used Hebrew when quoting the OT.  The Greek of the NT often also reflects Jesus' use of an Aramaic Targumic version of OT quotations.

The Septuagint was a 3rd century B.C. Greek translation by Jewish scholars in Egypt of an early Hebrew edition of the OT.  The reason for that translation, as well as of the Aramaic translations (Targums), was the need by diaspora Jews of a version in their vernacular -- much like today's Jewish Publication Society's English version of the Hebrew Bible for American Jews who do not read Hebrew.

[Robert F. Smith]

subgenius, on 12 August 2011 - 06:12 AM, said:

I am not sure what "problems" you are referring to, but i found the following two quotes from the linked article most revealing, with particular emphasis on the latter.

"For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable."

"But as soon as the words are given to human beings — with God's agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."

One important aspect of this effort to create a thorough critical text of the Hebrew Bible (as with Royal Skousen's continuing effort to find and list all variant readings of the Book of Mormon manuscripts) is that we can make better judgments as to what kind of changes occurred over time, and why.  This includes the well-known tiqqune soferim "corrections of the scribes," as well as some similar changes made for pious reasons.