Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

My Friendly Friday Questions


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

How is the bible that you use formatted?

There's a rich history here, for those who are interested in things like books as media.

The Christian Bible was grouped in books, or in epistles, until, I think the 10th century. Then chapters appeared.

I don't think verses appeared until the 16th century. I think the Calvinists brought them on. I might be mistaken, but I think that's the case.

I own physical copies of several Bibles, an RSV 2nd Catholic Ed., an ecumenical NRSV that includes the Orthodox books, an LDS KJV for the comfort of LDS family, etc. Only in the LDS edition are the lines formatted to reset at every verse, and I find it difficult to read. My other Bibles are organized into block columns with headings, and the back and forth with the eyes is much, much easier. Some writers, like Paul, can be obscured in a "trees from the forest kind of way" with the reset verses (at least for me). Candidly, I think the KJV makes Paul more difficult to read (and to understand).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

didn't always remember the chapter and verse (I generally remembered the book), but I almost always remembered exactly where it could be found on the page (I had a mental picture of it), so I could flip through the book and find it easily. 

That’s me too, lol. When I started using a different Bible, it was very annoying. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There's a rich history here, for those who are interested in things like books as media.

The Christian Bible was grouped in books, or in epistles, until, I think the 10th century. Then chapters appeared.

I don't think verses appeared until the 16th century. I think the Calvinists brought them on. I might be mistaken, but I think that's the case.

I own physical copies of several Bibles, an RSV 2nd Catholic Ed., an ecumenical NRSV that includes the Orthodox books, an LDS KJV for the comfort of LDS family, etc. Only in the LDS edition are the lines formatted to reset at every verse, and I find it difficult to read. My other Bibles are organized into block columns with headings, and the back and forth with the eyes is much, much easier. Some writers, like Paul, can be obscured in a "trees from the forest kind of way" with the reset verses (at least for me). Candidly, I think the KJV makes Paul more difficult to read (and to understand).

Checking my facts.

Chapters were first used in the 9th century, and the first verse divisions were made by Robert Estienne, a French Calvinist, in the 1550s.

As the Bible has changed in form, there have been tradeoffs: The vellum reinforced that the Bible was a sacred book. The calligraphy and illuminations of the Bibles of the Middle Ages guided interpretation and conveyed beauty in ways that critics obsessed with manuscript texts ignore. Until that horrible appliance, the printing press, turned the Bible into a commodity, it was correctly understood as a medium, and not just as a vehicle for content. It was a book to be read by one person at a time and heard by all, a communal book around which communities gathered. This gathering goes back to the synagogues, of course, and still happens at Mass.

I greatly value my study Bibles, but the person who first had enough pride to add a footnote to the Bible probably needed penance. 

Estienne's versification enabled cherry-picking and proof texting at the expense of the Bible's timeless mythos.

I'm not being fair, but for me there are tradeoffs with the commodification of the Bible, and with the pervasiveness of in-text study aids.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
On 6/10/2022 at 11:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

The authority to create the Bible comes from the Catholic Church, and particularly through its apostolic succession and sacred, oral tradition. Doesn't accepting the Bible at all accept Catholic authority on some level?

The LDS church took a look at what Catholics did in compiling the Bible and said, "Good job! We'll use most of it."

Link to comment
On 6/10/2022 at 11:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:
  • Is there a list of passages where the Bible translations are known to not be translated incorrectly? Do LDS folks discuss this kind of thing?

 

Yes, in my head, and the list changes constantly.

On 6/10/2022 at 11:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:
  • LDS folks seem to scrutinize Biblical interpretation much more than Biblical translation. This seems to go all the way back to Joseph Smith's evisceration of sola scriptura when he notes that the various Protestant groups were making it impossible to reconcile belief by appealing to the Bible. Is Article #8's reference to translation really more about interpretation?

"Translation" had a broader meaning in Joseph's day.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Checking my facts.

Chapters were first used in the 9th century, and the first verse divisions were made by Robert Estienne, a French Calvinist, in the 1550s.

As the Bible has changed in form, there have been tradeoffs: The vellum reinforced that the Bible was a sacred book. The calligraphy and illuminations of the Bibles of the Middle Ages guided interpretation and conveyed beauty in ways that critics obsessed with manuscript texts ignore. Until that horrible appliance, the printing press, turned the Bible into a commodity, it was correctly understood as a medium, and not just as a vehicle for content. It was a book to be read by one person at a time and heard by all, a communal book around which communities gathered. This gathering goes back to the synagogues, of course, and still happens at Mass.

I greatly value my study Bibles, but the person who first had enough pride to add a footnote to the Bible probably needed penance. 

Estienne's versification enabled cherry-picking and proof texting at the expense of the Bible's timeless mythos.

I'm not being fair, but for me there are tradeoffs with the commodification of the Bible, and with the pervasiveness of in-text study aids.

 

 

 

 

Agree completely.  It was like smashing all the stained glass windows with the LIGHT of heaven pouring in, and replacing them with squiggles on opaque page, making the meaning opaque as well.

The medium is the massage, and the massage suddenly went dark.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yes, in my head, and the list changes constantly.

"Translation" had a broader meaning in Joseph's day.

Yes.  Webster's 1828:

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/

 

""TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.""

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes.  Webster's 1828:

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/

 

""TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.""

Holy smokes all the examples were religious.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Holy smokes all the examples were religious.

Yep. Shows how important the KJV was to the language itself.

And if course truth is truth, and of course the bible is inerrant and contains all of human knowledge, right?  If it says a 6 day creation, of course as God's science book, that is what happened, of course, what other idea could there be??? Shall we mix the Lord's word and only source of truth with the philosophies of men?  ABOMINATION! ;) :)

......That's the way it was!

And now we lose members.

I wonder why. 🤔

We do not understand 21st century culture!

And THIS is precisely the reason we now need to see "truths" as acting independently in their own spheres.

Our culture cannot see it in any other way 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep. Shows how important the KJV was to the language itself.

And if course truth is truth, and of course the bible is inerrant and contains all of human knowledge, right?  If it says a 6 day creation, of course as God's science book, that is what happened, of course, what other idea could there be??? Shall we mix the Lord's word and only source of truth with the philosophies of men?  ABOMINATION! ;) :)

......That's the way it was!

And now we lose members.

I wonder why. 🤔

We do not understand 21st century culture!

And THIS is precisely the reason we now need to see "truths" as acting independently in their own spheres.

Our culture cannot see it in any other way 

 

 

"TRANSLATE" means "to change"?

Uh, HUGE change there!

Link to comment

What do you think of the organic life argument for the existence of God?

Quote

 

From the organic life on our earth. Life, whether animal or vegetable, cannot be produced by matter, but only by some higher, supramundane Creator.

Science has never discovered any transition from inorganic to organic matter. It is universally admitted that our earth was once so intensely hot that no organic life would have been possible. To suppose that meteorites conveyed the germs of life to the earth does not explain life, but is simply begging the question. “Spontaneous generation must be given up; under no circumstances whatever can chemical and mechanical forces produce a living being.” (Reinke, professor of botany at Kiel, Die Welt als Tat., p. 315.) Whilst confessing that he wishes the evidence were the other way, Tyndall is compelled to say: “I affirm that no shred of trustworthy experimental testimony exists to prove that life in our day has ever appeared independently of antecedent life.” (Nineteenth Century, 1878.)


Even the writer of the Book of Wisdom (13:1) bids us contemplate the universe, saying: “All men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God, and who, by these good things that are seen, could not understand Him that is, neither by attending to the works, have acknowledged who was the workman.” Cicero makes a very similar remark: “Thou beholdest not God, yet thou knowest God from His works.” (Tusc. disp., I, 29, 70.)


F. J. Koch, A Manual of Apologetics, ed. Charles Bruehl, trans. A. M. Buchanan (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1915), 19.

 

 

Edited by Saint Bonaventure
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What do you think of the organic life argument for the existence of God?

 Simply because we can’t explain organic life origins doesn’t make a compelling argument for God any more than it makes a compelling argument for magic or any other supernatural force or claim.   Scientists will simply point to the fact that things that are not understood and have no good explanation in the present time have always been attributed to magic or some supernatural force, only to be understood and demystified by science later.  So how can one guarantee that will not be the case here also?

Link to comment
On 5/5/2023 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

 Simply because we can’t explain organic life origins doesn’t make a compelling argument for God any more than it makes a compelling argument for magic or any other supernatural force or claim.   Scientists will simply point to the fact that things that are not understood and have no good explanation in the present time have always been attributed to magic or some supernatural force, only to be understood and demystified by science later.  So how can one guarantee that will not be the case here also?

Agree, but Catholicism has some of the same sorts of problems as this one.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So why the KJV instead of Joseph Smith's translation of the bible? 

We didn’t have the originals or access to all of them for a number of years, the RLDS/CoC did. And there was distrust about accuracy. 
 

Now it is tradition and comfort most likely plus it works well with the Book of Mormon, which is similar in overall style and repeats with some variation a significant amount of verses.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Calm said:

We didn’t have the originals or access to all of them for a number of years, the RLDS/CoC did. And there was distrust about accuracy. 
 

Now it is tradition and comfort most likely plus it works well with the Book of Mormon, which is similar in overall style and repeats with some variation a significant amount of verses.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

I can see that. And while the KJV isn't my favorite translation, it does have a dignity of language and a rich heritage. There are worse translations out there--no question.

 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
38 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So, if you're a practicing Latter-day Saint and I have you over for a BBQ, do I point out that I have non-alcoholic beverages for you, or do I just assume that you'll see them and be okay?

I'll have bottled water, soda, and diet soda.....

 

You'll be fine.  They have eyes, presumably! ;)

Some could be a little weird about caffeine so just be aware to leave options without caffeine.  But you don't have to point it out- water is probably what they will go for anyway.   Fruit punch is a biggie at ward gatherings.

Link to comment
On 5/12/2023 at 4:56 PM, Calm said:

We didn’t have the originals or access to all of them for a number of years, the RLDS/CoC did. And there was distrust about accuracy. 
 

Now it is tradition and comfort most likely plus it works well with the Book of Mormon, which is similar in overall style and repeats with some variation a significant amount of verses.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

Even though I was a convert- I was seen as the "scholar" of the family and inlaws- why I will never figure out.

But before my mother-in-law passed, she gave me the copy of the "Joseph Smith Bible" in one book - she had for years.   I was honored to say the least

I still get calls from my wife's sibs about church doctrine.

;)

Bwahahhahahhaaa!  ;) 

 

Link to comment
On 5/12/2023 at 3:26 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

So why the KJV instead of Joseph Smith's translation of the bible? 

I still want to skip the "For thine is the kingdom power and glory...." from the Lord's prayer- but we rarely quote it anyway!  And of course we do not "pray" it.   No written prayers allowed- don't know if you knew that.

And "grace" before meals typically has a formula- but the Catholic "Bless us oh Lord and these thy gifts...." would be fine if you are planning that as well.

It IS a Catholic home, after all!!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...