Oops, She Did It Again

[Freedom]

The irony is that keeper in this verse basically means legal guardian in the sense of having to make decisions on their behalf like a parent. Our songs and talks about being our brother's keeper are off the mark unless divested of some of the scriptural meaning.

Or it could be an exaggerated self exoneration People use this approach today when a friend makes a dangerous decision and they feel no duty to intervene 'I'm not his parent,he can make his own choices' Of course, such an approach today will land you at the loosing end of a lawsuit or perhaps even fail.

[Freedom]

It certainly can.

Can you provide an example?

[volgadon]

Can you provide an example?

The JST is an obvious example, but then we also have the older instance of Nephi reworking Isaiah.

[Freedom]

The JST is an obvious example, but then we also have the older instance of Nephi reworking Isaiah.

Is that reinterpreting or correcting? There is a difference. Joseph was not trying to reinterpret the text but to restore it to its original intended meaning because of errors brought on through poor translations. With Nephi, he is referring to a specific text, and this is my point. Unless the scriptures make it clear that they are reinterpreting something, it is providing new doctrine. My view is that what we have in Genesis is not consistent with modern teachings and I am ok with that. We rely on modern revelation and not the reinterpretation of ancient texts to guide our church.

[volgadon]

Is that reinterpreting or correcting? There is a difference. Joseph was not trying to reinterpret the text but to restore it to its original intended meaning because of errors brought on through poor translations.

This view is, in the main, untenable.

[why me]

I was never under the impression that modern revelation trumped scripture. I don't know who it was that used the Stick of Judah/Joseph verses in Ezekiel to justify the Book of Mormon. Whoever started that rash of reasoning obviously had no training in Biblical Hebrew. There are times that I still have to correct other members when they cite that scripture.

And that is the point. People can debate meanings until the end of time, especially when it comes to scripture. It is not just the OT but also the NT. Many christians have lost their lives in 'christian' wars over interpretations of scripture. In fact, the religious wars are a symbol of who is right and who is wrong about interpretation. And on 'christian' internet boards, the intolerance of of the other's interpretations are quite extreme. And at the end of the day, nothing is gained, except ill feelings and misunderstandings.

And so, on Jack's thread, we have people agreeing and disagreeing, with a pleasant discussion going on on who is right and who is wrong.

[Freedom]

This view is, in the main, untenable.

In your opinion perhaps. There are 4 explanaions given for the JST:

• Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
  
• Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
  
• Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance.
  
• Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.
  

These 4 reasons are not reinterpreting, they are providing something that was not there to begin with but added because of newer insights. Mostly he was making corrections. I think one true example of reinterpreting is with the word 'eternal' but even this is lds doctrine is consistent with the bible. Changing the meaning of Adams role over Eve requires much more than a reinterpretation. It requires a complete rewrite.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Freedom

[Freedom]

And that is the point. People can debate meanings until the end of time, especially when it comes to scripture.

I am unclear why you would argue that modern revelation can reinterpret scripture but it cannot trump scripture. If it is reinterpreting it, it is trumping it. I also find it problematic to say modern revelation is somehow different from scripture. Modern revelation IS scripture. It is modern scripture for our day. It takes away the whole problem of fighting over interpretations. We can set aside any problems with interpretations of ancient texts and rely on the modern will of God. I do not need to haggle over what the ancient hebrew words meant in Genesis. I can read what President Monson tells me today how I should act as a worthy priesthood holder.

edit - I think I am confusing two posters here. sorry

Edited March 25, 2013 by Freedom

[volgadon]

In your opinion perhaps. There are 4 explanaions given for the JST:

• Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
  
• Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
  
• Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance.
  
• Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.
  

These 4 reasons are not reinterpreting, they are providing something that was not there to begin with but added because of newer insights. Mostly he was making corrections. I think one true example of reinterpreting is with the word 'eternal' but even this is lds doctrine is consistent with the bible. Changing the meaning of Adams role over Eve requires much more than a reinterpretation. It requires a complete rewrite.

Those four reasons are patently not translation issues.

[Freedom]

Those four reasons are patently not translation issues.

I disagree. During translation processes, material often get lefts out, diminished, or enlarged beyond the original meaning. It is errors in translation that produced inaccurate biblical passages. This also occurs during transmition, but just as likely through translation.

[William Schryver]

I was never under the impression that modern revelation trumped scripture.

Really?

Wait a second ... what Church do you belong to? It must not be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since in that church, the living prophet does trump anything ever said by a dead one.

Of course, this has always been a stumbling block for people, from the very beginning -- always talking about how good the manna was that their fathers ate ...

[volgadon]

I disagree. During translation processes, material often get lefts out, diminished, or enlarged beyond the original meaning. It is errors in translation that produced inaccurate biblical passages. This also occurs during transmition, but just as likely through translation.

How can material deleted from the Bible constitute a translation issue, if it wasn't in the material being translated?

[Damien the Leper]

Really?

Wait a second ... what Church do you belong to? It must not be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since in that church, the living prophet does trump anything ever said by a dead one.

Of course, this has always been a stumbling block for people, from the very beginning -- always talking about how good the manna was that their fathers ate ...

With all do respect, Will, the fundamentals, IMHO, were established as a safeguard to overshadow possible ignorance concerning ancient cultures, ancient language, scripture and antiquity to justify a perspective and give greater authority to one side. I disagree with Benson in the article which you cite. I further disagree with Claudio Costa who regurgitated it in 2010. Like it or not, scripture is still an authority with or without modern prophets.

[Damien the Leper]

How can material deleted from the Bible constitute a translation issue, if it wasn't in the material being translated?

This is what I don't get about Bart Ehrman. He is an amazing textual critic. But the moment an atheist or some other person goes off on non-existence of a historical Jesus or that scripture isn't intact he rips them apart. I have heard more and more scholars say that the scriptures we have are, for the most part, intact.

[Damien the Leper]

And that is the point. People can debate meanings until the end of time, especially when it comes to scripture. It is not just the OT but also the NT. Many christians have lost their lives in 'christian' wars over interpretations of scripture. In fact, the religious wars are a symbol of who is right and who is wrong about interpretation. And on 'christian' internet boards, the intolerance of of the other's interpretations are quite extreme. And at the end of the day, nothing is gained, except ill feelings and misunderstandings.

And so, on Jack's thread, we have people agreeing and disagreeing, with a pleasant discussion going on on who is right and who is wrong.

I understand. However, reinterpreting Ezekiel for those explicit reasons doesn't hold water. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Ezekiel wrote something without knowing what it really was that he was writing. If anything, the Ezekiel passage, that is thankfully fading out of usage, was just a proof text and not evidence.

[Damien the Leper]

I am unclear why you would argue that modern revelation can reinterpret scripture but it cannot trump scripture. If it is reinterpreting it, it is trumping it. I also find it problematic to say modern revelation is somehow different from scripture. Modern revelation IS scripture. It is modern scripture for our day. It takes away the whole problem of fighting over interpretations. We can set aside any problems with interpretations of ancient texts and rely on the modern will of God. I do not need to haggle over what the ancient hebrew words meant in Genesis. I can read what President Monson tells me today how I should act as a worthy priesthood holder.

edit - I think I am confusing two posters here. sorry

Keep the scriptures in their historical context. There is very little or reasonable evidence to suggest the coming of the Restoration from the Jewish scriptures. Reinterpretation is simply that...a reinterpretation and NOT a correction. How Pres. Monson reinterprets scripture does not make it more authoritative than the original intent and meaning of the scriptures. That would be offensive to not only the people who were writing down these accounts but to God and his relationship with those people.

[stemelbow]

As honest as i can be. this is almost pointless.

I"m not sure why she had to comment about Hudson's status as a feminist. She had to call her something equivalent to an apostate or something. Why is that part of it?

Why all the angry comments about Hudson in the comments from Jeffries?

Why didn't she just point out the error and move on?

Apparently she said she had to embarrass Hudson because Hudson didn't take her seriously?

I kind of get it because I"ve spoken with msjack as a poster for a while now.

And, in my estimation, in the end, I don't think it matters that much. In some ways we're probably pretty close to views from thousands of years ago and in other ways we're probably miles apart. I would say my wife and I approach working together enough to say "with".

[Freedom]

Keep the scriptures in their historical context. There is very little or reasonable evidence to suggest the coming of the Restoration from the Jewish scriptures. Reinterpretation is simply that...a reinterpretation and NOT a correction. How Pres. Monson reinterprets scripture does not make it more authoritative than the original intent and meaning of the scriptures. That would be offensive to not only the people who were writing down these accounts but to God and his relationship with those people.

I make a distinction between a talk by President Monson and modern revelation (D&C, Proclamation on the Family). I do not see modern revelation reinterpreting scripture, and when I say reinterpreting scripture I am referring to the article in the Ensign where an attempt is being made to fundamental change the origional meaning of the passage to fit into modern social tolerances. The JS translation is not scripture, aside from those portions that have been included in the Pearl of Great Price. Likening the scriptures unto ourselves, as Nephi, is also altogether than the thesis of the Ensign article.

If the original passage said treat your slaves fairly, then there is no way to claim that this is not condoning slavery. What is taught in General Conference, in my opinion, trumps the scriptures in the sense that what is being taught today is more urgent for us than what was taught 5,000 years ago. I take with a grain of salt, however, attempts to change the original intended meaning of a passage to suite current teachings. I see no need to try to rationalize rationalize some the teachings of the Old Testament to fit it into the modern mormon world. It is ancient, some of it no longer applies.

[Stone holm]

I make a distinction between a talk by President Monson and modern revelation (D&C, Proclamation on the Family). I do not see modern revelation reinterpreting scripture, and when I say reinterpreting scripture I am referring to the article in the Ensign where an attempt is being made to fundamental change the origional meaning of the passage to fit into modern social tolerances. The JS translation is not scripture, aside from those portions that have been included in the Pearl of Great Price. Likening the scriptures unto ourselves, as Nephi, is also altogether than the thesis of the Ensign article.

If the original passage said treat your slaves fairly, then there is no way to claim that this is not condoning slavery. What is taught in General Conference, in my opinion, trumps the scriptures in the sense that what is being taught today is more urgent for us than what was taught 5,000 years ago. I take with a grain of salt, however, attempts to change the original intended meaning of a passage to suite current teachings. I see no need to try to rationalize rationalize some the teachings of the Old Testament to fit it into the modern mormon world. It is ancient, some of it no longer applies.

Good sound argument. I agree and it tarnishes our credibility when we try to whitewash the past. We don't always exactly understand what was going on in the past, but that is no grounds for doing a bit of revisionism. I also find it distracting when there is an attempt to whitewash history. I remember awhile back when someone made the argument that the Church was never involved in racism -- I took a double take, and thought okay what planet were you living on. Better to understand that until relatively recently race was a major part of nearly every culture on the Earth and until those cultural traditions were broken down it was quite reasonable for the cultural tradition to be part of any church including the true Church. Once in awhile I run into a person who is sufficiently ignorant that they don't even realize that the U.S. Constitution at one point not only condoned slavery, but could even be argued to have helped maintain its establishment -- and we have an incredible amount of faux history floating around right now.

[volgadon]

How Pres. Monson reinterprets scripture does not make it more authoritative than the original intent and meaning of the scriptures. That would be offensive to not only the people who were writing down these accounts but to God and his relationship with those people.

I don't think it'd be more offensive than their descendents saying things like the Torah has seventy faces, or these and these are the words of the Living God, or even that midrash about a bewildered Moses attending R. Akiva's academy.

[volgadon]

This is what I don't get about Bart Ehrman. He is an amazing textual critic. But the moment an atheist or some other person goes off on non-existence of a historical Jesus or that scripture isn't intact he rips them apart. I have heard more and more scholars say that the scriptures we have are, for the most part, intact.

Bart Ehrman obviously cares about his field of study.

[volgadon]

I don't think it'd be more offensive than their descendents saying things like the Torah has seventy faces, or these and these are the words of the Living God, or even that midrash about a bewildered Moses attending R. Akiva's academy.

I nearly forgot to mention Fishbane's book on biblical interpretation in ancient Israel.

[Vance]

As honest as i can be. this is almost pointless.

I"m not sure why she had to comment about Hudson's status as a feminist. She had to call her something equivalent to an apostate or something. Why is that part of it?

Why all the angry comments about Hudson in the comments from Jeffries?

Why didn't she just point out the error and move on?

Apparently she said she had to embarrass Hudson because Hudson didn't take her seriously?

I kind of get it because I"ve spoken with msjack as a poster for a while now.

And, in my estimation, in the end, I don't think it matters that much. In some ways we're probably pretty close to views from thousands of years ago and in other ways we're probably miles apart. I would say my wife and I approach working together enough to say "with".

MsJack does seem to have a giant chip on her shoulder.

[Damien the Leper]

At least her article was great, Vance.

[stemelbow]

At least her article was great, Vance.

Why was feminism or Valerie's lack thereof even brought up? I'm not sure it was a great article. It was an interesting piece, no doubt. I also don't think it's that stellar of a point. If the correction is necessary I'm glad it's out there, but I simply don't see it as a significant point. Rule with vs rule over? meh.