Another Mormon Paradox?

[Senator]

My daughter's Seminary teacher did that. She was teaching using the NIV. The Bishop found out and she was counseled in the correct version to use: KJV. The teacher still carries and uses the NIV for her PERSONAL study, but when she is teaching she uses the KJV only now.

Uniformity may be the ideal behind the tradition. Which is understandable.

Unfortunately, the mistranslation of that ideal can lead to simple border control.

[zerinus]

Which proves mine to be right!

It is your word against mine! Do you have a valid criterion by which to decide which is right and which is wring? I think I have a majority Mormon opinion on my side. That tells me that I am more likely to be right than you!

[consiglieri]

It is your word against mine! Do you have a valid criterion by which to decide which is right and which is wring? I think I have a majority Mormon opinion on my side. That tells me that I am more likely to be right than you!

Confidentially, I think you are completely "wring."

Have you looked up Deuteronomy 32:8 yet?

I believe that is evidence that I am right.

What do you think?

[zerinus]

Confidentially, I think you are completely "wring."

Have you looked up Deuteronomy 32:8 yet?

I believe that is evidence that I am right.

What do you think?

Can you explain that a bit more?

[consiglieri]

Can you explain that a bit more?

Look it up first.

I can't do all the heavy lifting for you.

Besides, you'll appreciate it more if you do some of the work.

[handys003]

Actually, 'without a cause' is a later addition. In fact, Joseph Smith agreed that it was better without 'without a cause'. Check out the JST.

Handy, instead of comparing English translations to the KJV as the defacto, try comparing them to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. (This was J. Reuben Clark's problem).

I never tried that as had little time and where can I get my hands on such or do you have a link?

The KJV isn't the 'original', contrary to popular belief. In fact, it's more of a revision of previous translations merged together. Most of the New Testament is pure Tyndale.

Yes, I know the history of the bible. However as I alluded to in my post where do we stop or draw the line on bible usages. Which one do we decide on such as tossing the KJV out and going with the NSRV thus interpreting piety's instead of alms? Do we pick the NIV or how about we just have the GA's rewrite the KJV with their own version. The problem of such makes for different interpretations by different individuals through their own revelation. Example: Consig and others view HF as speaking to Moses and to others JC speaking instead. Another would be the Trinity vs. our version of the Godhead. This is why there are so many sects, and each other calling each other non-Christians such as John T and RB in other posts. Speaking of which look what it got Tyndale. Charges of heresy for inaccuracies in his translations. What he get for his hard work? BBQ at the stake. Poor guy he just wanted to help others understand better.

[Luigi]

After I told the bishop I didn't believe in the Church he brought up in our next encounter that he had been 'informed' that I had brought an NIV Bible to Church. He's a nice guy so I didn't make a huge deal about it but I thought it was funny that had been 'reported' to him and that he even bothered to bring it up-like I'd been spotted with contraband.

[zerinus]

Look it up first.

I can't do all the heavy lifting for you.

Besides, you'll appreciate it more if you do some of the work.

I did look it up. I still don't know what is the point you are trying to make.

[emeliza]

I am not uncomfortable with another version of the Bible so long as I am not trying to follow along in my own copy.

When I was Presbyterian, we used the NSRV. However this was an update because when I was little we used the SRV. So the Bible I personally had and the Bible in all our pews were SRV, however they used the NSRV at the pulpit and lecturn. It drove me absolutely nuts. I couldn't follow along and I am very visual and not auditory at all. So basically I could listen as well to what they were saying and I couldn't follow along as the words were quite a bit different in these two versions. You wouldn't think they would be that much different, but they were. Now had I been a bit more mature, I would have gone out and purchased my own NRSV, however I wasn't so instead I just quit trying to listen when scriptures were being read.

[handys003]

Deut 32:8 KJV

8 When the most High divided to the ^anations their ^binheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the ^cbounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Deut 32:8 NSRV

⁸When the Most High^* apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind,<BR class=kk>he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;*

(*Traditional rendering of Heb Elyon)

(*Ms Compare Gk Tg: MT the Israelites)

Thanks Consig for validating my assertion. The majority of biblical readers do not look up footnotes. Therefore continued confusion and misinterpretation will continue to ensue.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for checking that out, Handy, since it didn't look like Zerinus was going to get around to it anytime soon.

Looks like the KJV was hiding the ball on that particular verse, doesn't it?

It is amazing what can happen when we use texts that are 1,000 years earlier than the Masoretic Text (MT) on which the KJV is based.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[handys003]

Thanks for checking that out, Handy, since it didn't look like Zerinus was going to get around to it anytime soon.

Looks like the KJV was hiding the ball on that particular verse, doesn't it?

It is amazing what can happen when we use texts that are 1,000 years earlier than the Masoretic Text (MT) on which the KJV is based.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well be careful not to become BBQ like Tyndale.

[zerinus]

Deut 32:8 KJV

8 When the most High divided to the ^anations their ^binheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the ^cbounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Deut 32:8 NSRV

⁸When the Most High^* apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind,<BR class=kk>he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;*

(*Traditional rendering of Heb Elyon)

(*Ms Compare Gk Tg: MT the Israelites)

Thanks Consig for validating my assertion. The majority of biblical readers do not look up footnotes. Therefore continued confusion and misinterpretation will continue to ensue.

Thanks for checking that out, Handy, since it didn't look like Zerinus was going to get around to it anytime soon.

Looks like the KJV was hiding the ball on that particular verse, doesn't it?

It is amazing what can happen when we use texts that are 1,000 years earlier than the Masoretic Text (MT) on which the KJV is based.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I still don't know what is the point you are trying to make. Can you explain please?

[handys003]

I still don't know what is the point you are trying to make. Can you explain please?

Sorry for using you as an example. I was trying to impart on Consig that using different versions of the bible can cause, confuse, or misinterpret of the scripture by individuals. I used Deut 32:8 as an example of such.

Consig - This comes to mind from what my father taught me. He had 40 years of journalistic writing for several papers across the US. He imparted that the best speech or article is not the use of terms that are incomprehensible to the common listener or reader. It is the explanation best suited in simple eloquence.

In other words intellectuals who like to impart their knowledge will sound unintelligible to a person with no background in such. He will just put aside your words.

[zerinus]

Sorry for using you as an example. I was trying to impart on Consig that using different versions of the bible can cause, confuse, or misinterpret of the scripture by individuals. I used Deut 32:8 as an example of such.

Consig - This comes to mind from what my father taught me. He had 40 years of journalistic writing for several papers across the US. He imparted that the best speech or article is not the use of terms that are incomprehensible to the common listener or reader. It is the explanation best suited in simple eloquence.

In other words intellectuals who like to impart their knowledge will sound unintelligible to a person with no background in such. He will just put aside your words.

My side of the debate is consig, not you. I am trying to find out what he is driving at, not you.