Js Revised Bible

[rodheadlee]

not to mention you can't make your argument...

;0)

i already did, you refuse to recognize it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Pahoran]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd have to conclude the LDS Church actually derives benefit from having a 400+ year old translation full of archaic prose not easily understood by the modern reader.

You're right; it's counter-intuitive.

Counter-intuitive because it is false.

Your accusation has no basis and is not supported by your anecdote. As such, it reflects only upon your rather comprehensive want of logic.

I'll share an example from back in the day. YSA Gospel Doctrine class, the story of the widow's mite, from Mark 12:42-44. The bishop's wife, in attendance,

How is it relevant that this individual was the bishop's wife? Are you perhaps trying to give the impression that her statement carried some kind of special weight?

Perhaps when you are regaling your usual audience who know nothing about the Church of Jesus Christ, that tactic might fly, but among informed Latter-day Saints, it doesn't.

Just so you know.

picked up on the KJV's rendering in 44--"she of her want did cast in all that she had." And she shared with the class that this is a wonderful example of "free agency" and how much it means to God when we give out of our own desire and choice. The widow gave because she wanted to. Free agency was the lesson Christ was teaching his disciples. Confusion over archaic usage of the word "want" affirmed an important LDS doctrine.

Being the unworthy guy at the back of the room with a copy of the Precise Parallel New Testament, and having actually read several English translations of the New Testament, I was blessed to know better (although it didn't feel like much of a blessing at the time). And I actually tried to correct the situation, explaining that in the context "want" simply meant "poverty" (as ESV, NIV, etc. make clear) and that the passage shouldn't be construed as an argument for free will or agency.

Needless to say, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm in the room for my correction or my "alternative" bibles.

Needless to say, you didn't need an "alternative" Bible. The footnote to the word "want" in verse 44 goes to 2 Corinthians 8:2, which talks about being generous in "deep poverty."

The lady in question, whose husband's calling is absolutely irrelevant to the quality of her exegesis, was simply wrong because she didn't understand a slightly archaic usage. No intelligent person would honestly attribute that to some kind of conspiracy.

And, AFAICT, no intelligent person has.

("Which one is the correct one, Erik?"). So I find it hard to believe the LDS Church will ever give up their KJV.

Love to be wrong, of course.

In which case, you must be absolutely thrilled.

Regards,

Pahoran

[tyler90az]

God does not speak through ancient texts. If the bible was corrected and all items restored, there would not have been a need for modern revelation. Some corrections were made to the bible, but any errors or omissions are restored through the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. We do not have the original manuscripts so there is no way of knowing if what we have now has any resemblance to the original work. We rely on modern scripture to bring clarity to passages in the bible. I don't think there is a legitimate biblical scholar alive who would take issue with the statement 'as far as it is translated correctly'. If it was translated correctly, why are so many Christians calling for newer translations? Why are there so many commentaries providing alternative translations for key words in order to bring greater clarity to the text?

You would be surprised how many Christians believe there are no errors in the Bible.

[Five Solas]

You're right; it's counter-intuitive.

Counter-intuitive because it is false.

Your accusation has no basis and is not supported by your anecdote. As such, it reflects only upon your rather comprehensive want of logic.

It's amazing what people will say on message boards. In any other social setting, you'd never lead your response by insulting my intelligence. You wouldn't. And yet because we're on a message board that makes it okay?

How is it relevant that this individual was the bishop's wife? Are you perhaps trying to give the impression that her statement carried some kind of special weight?

I don't know that it's highly relevant. But I thought it would be useful for my readers to understand. The wife of a bishop in a YSA ward is generally well regarded and even seen as a role model by some (in my experience--which may be different than yours). So to that extent, her words/opinions carry weight.

Perhaps when you are regaling your usual audience who know nothing about the Church of Jesus Christ, that tactic might fly, but among informed Latter-day Saints, it doesn't.

Just so you know.

No idea who you think is my "usual audience." This is the only message board of any kind I've participated on in the past year. It's been a good 3 months since I've even logged into Facebook. I'm pretty active on LinkedIn, but that's all business.

Needless to say, you didn't need an "alternative" Bible. The footnote to the word "want" in verse 44 goes to 2 Corinthians 8:2, which talks about being generous in "deep poverty."

The lady in question, whose husband's calling is absolutely irrelevant to the quality of her exegesis, was simply wrong because she didn't understand a slightly archaic usage.

Here's the best part--you agree with the point I'm making.

This lady was "simply wrong." Why was she wrong? Because she understood "want" in the KJV translation of Mark 12:44 to mean "desire." When in fact "want" meant poverty. It's not a mistake she could have made with a modern translation (e.g., NIV, ESV). And that's my whole point--her confusion affirmed the LDS doctrine of Free Agency for the class. Affirmation that wouldn't have been possible with a modern translation.

No intelligent person would honestly attribute that to some kind of conspiracy.

And, AFAICT, no intelligent person has.

I do not think for one moment the bishop's wife in my story was involved in a "conspiracy." And I don't think many people would conclude this based on what I wrote...

In which case, you must be absolutely thrilled.

Regards,

Pahoran

What makes this so personal for you, Pahoran, that you would attack me in so indecent a manner? You owe me an apology.

--Erik

[altersteve]

Nope. You'll find a lot in the New Testament about free grace. But free agency as LDS would have it? Not so much. Feel "free" to demonstrate otherwise.

;0)

Not sure what you mean by "as LDS would have it," but I think there's a lot to be found in the New Testament about agency. The first example that comes to mind is when Christ invited his disciples to "Come, follow me," which they did by their own choice. It sounds simple, but there's something very profound about that. There doesn't have to be a direct reference to something in order for it to be there. Also, I don't know why you limit this to just the New Testament. Other Christians do this all the time, it seems: challenge us Latter-day Saints to provide references to a certain topic from only the New Testament, ignoring the rest of the Bible. I wonder why.

Edited February 27, 2013 by altersteve

[Pahoran]

It's amazing what people will say on message boards. In any other social setting, you'd never lead your response by insulting my intelligence. You wouldn't. And yet because we're on a message board that makes it okay?

Note that you didn't need an "alternative Bible" to know what a "want of logic" was.

You find "want of logic" insulting? Be grateful I didn't draw any conclusions about a want of character.

I don't know that it's highly relevant. But I thought it would be useful for my readers to understand. The wife of a bishop in a YSA ward is generally well regarded and even seen as a role model by some (in my experience--which may be different than yours). So to that extent, her words/opinions carry weight.

Absolutely no informed Latter-day Saint would assume that she was any kind of expert on scriptural interpretation. Her offering does not represent any standard of any kind, and it is Ed Deckeresque to pretend that it does.

Here's the best part--you agree with the point I'm making.

That, as you know, is false.

Here is the point you previously claimed to be making:

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd have to conclude the LDS Church actually derives benefit from having a 400+ year old translation full of archaic prose not easily understood by the modern reader.

As you know, I don't agree with that claim. I don't see that lady's rather trivial mistake as a "benefit" of any kind to the Church.

This lady was "simply wrong." Why was she wrong? Because she understood "want" in the KJV translation of Mark 12:44 to mean "desire." When in fact "want" meant poverty. It's not a mistake she could have made with a modern translation (e.g., NIV, ESV). And that's my whole point--her confusion affirmed the LDS doctrine of Free Agency for the class. Affirmation that wouldn't have been possible with a modern translation.

What you sneeringly call "the LDS doctrine of Free Agency" is more correctly called just agency.

And while it isn't explicit in that verse, it's actually found all over the Bible; in contrast to Calvinist notions, which can only be tortured out of a few passages in Romans and Galatians.

All that happened was that she made a simple mistake in comprehension. Her mistake was (1) honest, (2) benign and (3) trivial. The falsehood you have tried to parlay from it is (1) disingenuous, (2) malicious and (3) significant.

I do not think for one moment the bishop's wife in my story was involved in a "conspiracy." And I don't think many people would conclude this based on what I wrote...

What makes this so personal for you, Pahoran, that you would attack me in so indecent a manner? You owe me an apology.

--Erik

Think so, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

The attacking isn't acceptable, Pahoran and you have been here long enough to know that. You will have to be removed from the thread.