"...as far as it is translated correctly."

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Okay, I'm hearing that "correct" (and by extension "correctly") can't be defined in that context in a meaningful way. 

I mean this in any context. I don't believe that you can produce a correct translation of any text - because I think that the term "correct" in this context is hollow - it has no meaning. I think that we can speak of good translation and bad translation. I think that we can even choose criteria that we could use to evaluate translations (necessary to judge good from bad) - so that we can speak of good translations and better translations. But to speak of a correct translation means that we must also define the exact criteria by which a translation can be viewed as correct (or incorrect) and an exact context in which to understand that translation as correct. And this specificity means that for all effective purposes we simply never get correct translations.

If you haven't seen any of my material touching on this issue, you might look here, and here.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At any rate, I doubt that we have enough in common here to make the discussion worth continuing.

I need to have these words tattooed somewhere, so I learn to use them regularly.

Instead I will go around and around until I get snarky.

 

[Leaf474]

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I mean this in any context. I don't believe that you can produce a correct translation of any text -

 

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

...because I think that the term "correct" in this context is hollow - it has no meaning.

When you wrote this earlier,

 

"I might even go so far as to suggest that the correct translation of the text (which isn't a translation of words in any sort of literal word-for-word construction) is the one which brings the text into the present moment from our experience and so becomes truly meaningful to us individually as readers."

 

did you attach a meaning to the word "correct"?

 

If the word "correct" has no meaning in this context, does the following statement have any meaning?

 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

 

18 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we can speak of good translation and bad translation. I think that we can even choose criteria that we could use to evaluate translations (necessary to judge good from bad) - so that we can speak of good translations and better translations. But to speak of a correct translation means that we must also define the exact criteria by which a translation can be viewed as correct (or incorrect) and an exact context in which to understand that translation as correct. And this specificity means that for all effective purposes we simply never get correct translations.

If you haven't seen any of my material touching on this issue, you might look here, and here.

Thanks for the information 🙂

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

"I might even go so far as to suggest that the correct translation of the text (which isn't a translation of words in any sort of literal word-for-word construction) is the one which brings the text into the present moment from our experience and so becomes truly meaningful to us individually as readers."

did you attach a meaning to the word "correct"?

Only loosely. The problem is that there is no definiteness to this. That is, if I 'bring the text into the present moment from my experience' and it becomes meaningful to me as a reader, then I have a correct translation - but it is only a correct translation for myself at a particular moment in time. And in reading such a translation, the translation changes me (it alters my experience) so that if I were to translate again, it would be different, and this new translation would likewise be only momentarily correct. So to go back to my most recent comments:

On 3/20/2024 at 8:08 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But to speak of a correct translation means that we must also define the exact criteria by which a translation can be viewed as correct (or incorrect) and an exact context in which to understand that translation as correct. And this specificity means that for all effective purposes we simply never get correct translations.

So we can get correct translations - but they require such specificity in terms of context (the one who translate/reads the text defined through personal experience and the temporal moment of the translation) - that such a translation would lose its correctness the moment that it is completed. So as long as we are only interested in a personal moment of enlightenment, then we can have correctness. But if we lose that, then we don't get it. And certainly if this translation is given to someone else, it becomes even less correct.

5 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

If the word "correct" has no meaning in this context, does the following statement have any meaning?

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

I think that given my approach that there is a lot to unpack here. The word Bible here refers more or less to modern language translations of the biblical text - and likely was aimed mostly at the King James (which was the only major English translation at the time). And the original intent was to suggest that the Bible (using that definition) suffered from its translation (which is a broad term in this context). In this context, I would say that the statement doesn't have any meaning. If we read it, as I do, then this means that as we translate it correctly, it becomes the word of God, and that the translation process is an act which brings the text into the present moment through our experience (we liken the text unto ourselves). And with this perspective, I think that this statement has meaning.

Edited March 22 by Benjamin McGuire

[Leaf474]

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Only loosely. The problem is that there is no definiteness to this. That is, if I 'bring the text into the present moment from my experience' and it becomes meaningful to me as a reader,

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

...then I have a correct translation - but it is only a correct translation for myself at a particular moment in time.

Okay, sounds good 👍

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And in reading such a translation, the translation changes me (it alters my experience) so that if I were to translate again, it would be different, and this new translation would likewise be only momentarily correct. So to go back to my most recent comments:

So we can get correct translations - but they require such specificity in terms of context (the one who translate/reads the text defined through personal experience and the temporal moment of the translation) - that such a translation would lose its correctness the moment that it is completed. So as long as we are only interested in a personal moment of enlightenment, then we can have correctness. But if we lose that, then we don't get it. And certainly if this translation is given to someone else, it becomes even less correct.

I think that given my approach that there is a lot to unpack here. The word Bible here refers more or less to modern language translations of the biblical text - and likely was aimed mostly at the King James (which was the only major English translation at the time). And the original intent was to suggest that the Bible (using that definition) suffered from its translation (which is a broad term in this context). In this context, I would say that the statement doesn't have any meaning.

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we read it, as I do, then this means that as we translate it correctly, it becomes the word of God, and that the translation process is an act which brings the text into the present moment through our experience (we liken the text unto ourselves). And with this perspective, I think that this statement has meaning.

Thanks for your input ❤️

 

And as you're describing the situation there, would the answer to the OP be Yes?

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

And as you're describing the situation there, would the answer to the OP be Yes?

I would say that it is the only way to 'correctly translate' - but, the challenge (and the reason for the long discussion) is that my view of what translation means is probably quite different than many who participate here.

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would say that it is the only way to 'correctly translate' - but, the challenge (and the reason for the long discussion) is that my view of what translation means is probably quite different than many who participate here.

For what it's worth, you've pretty much got me on board. Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading was excellent.

 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

For what it's worth, you've pretty much got me on board. Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading was excellent.

 

IMO this way of seeing things is the most likely way of reconstructing religion intellectually that will work and keep it alive for future generations.

And yet this trend can be traced back to Kant, perhaps the first Modern who became Postmodern- sort of!  His Synthetic Apriori opened the door to the idea that human experience can create pure truth.

But the ancients had it also of course, yet while "seeing through a glass, darkly", but they did not have the obstacle of Cartesian Dualism and the alleged split between science and religion to cloud their thoughts.

I think Postmodernism is an essential step to not only complete the Restoration, but also truly " turn our hearts to our Fathers" in their ability to live constantly in the Spirit, and combine that level of consciousness with our technological expertise.

IFF we don't blow ourselves up first!

Edited March 22 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would say that it is the only way to 'correctly translate' - but, the challenge (and the reason for the long discussion) is that my view of what translation means is probably quite different than many who participate here.

Thanks for your input ❤️ I appreciate your time 🙋‍♂️

[OGHoosier]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

they did not have the obstacle of Cartesian Dualism

Awkward, I'm definitely a substance dualist. Not entirely sure what the epistemological impact of Cartesian dualism is here. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Awkward, I'm definitely a substance dualist. Not entirely sure what the epistemological impact of Cartesian dualism is here.

First, thanks for the kind words - people tend to either like that essay or really dislike it.

Cartesian dualism would argue that the only way to really understand something is with pure intellect - without the body (and so without experience). Perhaps another way of saying it is that real Truth shouldn't require experience to uncover or to know (and shouldn't require a body/mortal experience, and so on). For the ancients (to use @mfbukowski's term), there is this constant tension between intellect and material existence. This sort of thing is easiest seen in Islamic philosophy in the Middle Ages - when Christianity was moving away from this view for a time. Here is something from Al-Fârâbî's The Attainment of Happiness (emphasis is mine):

Quote

Therefore, according to the Ancients, religion is an imitation of philosophy. Both comprise the same subjects and both give an account of the ultimate principles of the beings. For both supply knowledge about the first principle and cause of the beings, and both give an account of the ultimate end for the sake of which man is made — that is the supreme happiness — and the ultimate end of every one of the other beings. In everything of which philosophy gives an account based on intellectual perception or conception, religion gives an account based on imagination. In everything demonstrated by philosophy, religion employs persuasion. Philosophy gives an account of the ultimate principles as they are perceived by the intellect. Religion set forth its images by means of similitudes of them taken from corporal principles and imitates them by their likeness ...

Christianity takes some of this - and with it's disembodied God makes God a being of pure intellect. And this heavily influences views of what a post-mortal existence is like (which is nothing at all like the other thread on that question here). Christianity goes a different way than this quote does though, and makes rationality a weak second to the spiritual.

So Thomas Aquinas begins Chapter 8 of Book 1 of his Summa Contra Gentiles by writing (and this is a response to the ideas like those of Al-Fârâbî):

Quote

There is then a twofold sort of truth in things divine for the wise man to study: one that can be attained by rational enquiry, another that transcends all the industry of reason.

The positions are reversed. Al-Fârâbî argues that religion is wonderful for those incapable of, or at least limited with regard to, pure intellectual endeavor. Aquinas argues that rationality is the stepping stone to faith, and that pure reason falls far short. But both of these traditions, or as @mfbukowski describes it:

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

the obstacle of Cartesian Dualism and the alleged split between science and religion ...

would struggle with the sort of epistemology I outline. The desire to separate the two and to create barriers between them becomes the obstacle. In the same way, I think, even a substance dualism runs into problems in LDS thought. Why? Because it would tend to only apply up to a point. The end of man (to use a phrase that Lehi likes) is not to have separate parts - the intellect (or the spirit) separated from the body - but to have them together as an inseparable singe whole. This is true for those all those who gain a physical body (who experience the separation). And on some level, the experience of the highest truths in Mormonism require exaltation where that unification of soul and body is not only absolute, but it also comes with absolute freedom "to act and not be acted upon."

LDS thought has over time invested in a wide range of reasons why there isn't a mind/body problem - including in more recent years the expansions on the idea of gender as a pre-existent attribute. So while I think that substance dualism is helpful in terms of understanding the difference between spirit and body, anything that includes an assumption that this is how it will remain is going to be problematic in the LDS world view. I think that Mormonism doesn't have a broad epistemological argument about all of this yet. This isn't surprising. It took Christianity 1200 years to produce Aquinas ...

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited March 24 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 3/20/2024 at 5:27 PM, Teancum said:

Have you read any of Ehrman's books?

Oh, yes. It's been a while, though. Misquoting Jesus for one. I read it years ago, but my print copy is about 4,000 miles away from where I mostly live. I have Jesus, Interrupted, on Kindle, which I've been trying to get around to reading, but haven't managed it so far.

In my opinion he is a brilliant scholar and well worth reading, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. Don't ask me which ones I disagree with, I beg of you, because I don't remember! 🤪

[Stargazer]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:37 PM, Leaf474 said:

 

On 3/20/2024 at 12:32 AM, Stargazer said:

It's possible that understanding the intent of a passage of scripture could be an instance of the "little voice."

Okay, the still small voice could give you the intent of a passage of scripture. 

Oh, absolutely!

On 3/20/2024 at 9:37 PM, Leaf474 said:

 

On 3/20/2024 at 12:32 AM, Stargazer said:

But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice. 

Okay... and the translation of the Bible?

The Bible, in its King James form (which is what I am most familiar with) is one of the greatest examples of literature in the world. I love it. 

As far as the accuracy of its translation, I am not sure what to tell you. Joseph Smith went through the entire Old and New Testaments (KJV version) making changes to the wording to more accurately reflect God's intent. But while it is called the Joseph Smith Translation (frequently cited as JST) it is by no means a translation in the usual understanding of the word. Mainly because he did not translate it by conventional means from the original texts.  Which of course he didn't have and couldn't conventionally read anyway. Joseph's intent was not to provide a translation, but to remove errors and correct omissions. It's very possible that some of the errors were actually in the original texts (that we won't ever get) and some of the omissions weren't in the original texts in the first place. Not to dwell too much on it, the JST/IV was intended to restore what Joseph described as "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (emphasis added). I should point out that we don't regard the JST as canon (nor does the CoJCoLDS own the copyright). It is considered somewhat persuasive, however. Joseph never completed his work on it.

I would have to say that Bible, as we have it, is probably fairly reliable in translation. Not being a scholar of ancient languages myself, I can only comment upon what others whom I trust have said regarding this. And I find oddities when comparing translations.

For example, in the King James Version for Isaiah 28:10 we find this (note carefully the italicized words -- they will be important in a moment):

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

This happens to be a favorite passage amongst LDS. But then we run into the same verse in an important German translation, the Einheitsübersetzung (or Unity Translation) used by the Roman Catholics in German-speaking countries. This version was also used as the preferred translation by the LDS in such countries (for some reason I don't understand). Here's what it says:

Ja, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, hier ein wenig, dort ein wenig.

Do you see the proglem? Since I don't know if you understand German (I do, from my mission experience), here's my translation:

Yes, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, here a little, there a little.

The italicized gibberish words here apparently occur in the original text, and are interpreted to be taken as the kind of speech someone might utter under the influence of having partaken too deeply in "adult beverages." From whence do the KJV translators get "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;"??? 

And don't go chasing down Martin Luther's translation of the Bible expecting to see anything better, because the same gibberish occurs there, too. Word for word, because those are the transliterated words from the original Ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic, for all I know). Apparently.

However, there is another German version (from Hermann Menge) that was published in 1939, and will be the officially preferred LDS version when they finish harmonizing it. The same verse in Menge's version is as follows:

Da heißt’s immer: ‘Tu du dies, tu du das! Mach mal dies, mach mal das! Hier ein bißchen, da ein bißchen!’”

Now isn't that interesting? Again, my translation:

So it's always said: "Do this, do that! Make this, make that! Here a little, there a little!"

Google Translate gives it a bit differently: 

It’s always like, ‘If you do this, you do that! Do this, do that! A little here, a little there!”

I'm not sure Google has it correctly. The two different words "tu" and "mach" can both be taken as "do" as in "do this", but while "mach" is closer to English "make," it can also be used in the same way as English "do." As in "Mach schnell!" = "Do it quickly!" 

I also had a look at the same passage in Spanish (which I can read a little).

Porque mandamiento sobre mandamiento, amandato tras mandato, línea sobre línea, línea sobre línea, un poquito allí, otro poquito allá;

Not sure which version this is in Spanish. But Google Translate gives it as follows:

Because commandment upon commandment, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, a little there, a little there;

Now I ask you, in examining this verse in three languages, what do you think of the correctness of the Bible's translation? Is that verse's translation correctest in the King James, Unity/Luther, Menge, or Spanish translation?

If you want a possibly jarring experience, read Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It didn't jar me, because what Ehrman wrote was pretty much the LDS viewpoint on the Bible in the first place. But for some Evangelicals it was a hard pill to swallow, especially for those who were of the Biblical Inerrancy persuasion.

But all this aside, I think we can agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, and Christ alone is the source of our redemption.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

However, there is another German version (from Hermann Menge) that was published in 1939, and will be the officially preferred LDS version when they finish harmonizing it.

Here I'm trying to remember who it is on this forum who is one of those who is working to bringing the Menge translation to the Church for German-speaking members. Menge's translation is being used as the basis for German in the Church because of two reasons (as I understand it): 

1. The Menge translation has gone into the public domain
2. It doesn't contain any objectional doctrine (i.e. bad translation, or false doctrine).

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, absolutely!

The Bible, in its King James form (which is what I am most familiar with) is one of the greatest examples of literature in the world. I love it. 

As far as the accuracy of its translation, I am not sure what to tell you. Joseph Smith went through the entire Old and New Testaments (KJV version) making changes to the wording to more accurately reflect God's intent. But while it is called the Joseph Smith Translation (frequently cited as JST) it is by no means a translation in the usual understanding of the word. Mainly because he did not translate it by conventional means from the original texts.  Which of course he didn't have and couldn't conventionally read anyway. Joseph's intent was not to provide a translation, but to remove errors and correct omissions. It's very possible that some of the errors were actually in the original texts (that we won't ever get) and some of the omissions weren't in the original texts in the first place. Not to dwell too much on it, the JST/IV was intended to restore what Joseph described as "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (emphasis added). I should point out that we don't regard the JST as canon (nor does the CoJCoLDS own the copyright). It is considered somewhat persuasive, however. Joseph never completed his work on it.

I would have to say that Bible, as we have it, is probably fairly reliable in translation. Not being a scholar of ancient languages myself, I can only comment upon what others whom I trust have said regarding this. And I find oddities when comparing translations.

For example, in the King James Version for Isaiah 28:10 we find this (note carefully the italicized words -- they will be important in a moment):

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

This happens to be a favorite passage amongst LDS. But then we run into the same verse in an important German translation, the Einheitsübersetzung (or Unity Translation) used by the Roman Catholics in German-speaking countries. This version was also used as the preferred translation by the LDS in such countries (for some reason I don't understand). Here's what it says:

Ja, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, hier ein wenig, dort ein wenig.

Do you see the proglem? Since I don't know if you understand German (I do, from my mission experience), here's my translation:

Yes, zaw lazaw, zaw lazaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, here a little, there a little.

The italicized gibberish words here apparently occur in the original text, and are interpreted to be taken as the kind of speech someone might utter under the influence of having partaken too deeply in "adult beverages." From whence do the KJV translators get "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;"??? 

And don't go chasing down Martin Luther's translation of the Bible expecting to see anything better, because the same gibberish occurs there, too. Word for word, because those are the transliterated words from the original Ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic, for all I know). Apparently.

However, there is another German version (from Hermann Menge) that was published in 1939, and will be the officially preferred LDS version when they finish harmonizing it. The same verse in Menge's version is as follows:

Da heißt’s immer: ‘Tu du dies, tu du das! Mach mal dies, mach mal das! Hier ein bißchen, da ein bißchen!’”

Now isn't that interesting? Again, my translation:

So it's always said: "Do this, do that! Make this, make that! Here a little, there a little!"

Google Translate gives it a bit differently: 

It’s always like, ‘If you do this, you do that! Do this, do that! A little here, a little there!”

I'm not sure Google has it correctly. The two different words "tu" and "mach" can both be taken as "do" as in "do this", but while "mach" is closer to English "make," it can also be used in the same way as English "do." As in "Mach schnell!" = "Do it quickly!" 

I also had a look at the same passage in Spanish (which I can read a little). Not sure which version this is in Spanish. But Google Translate gives it as follows:

Because commandment upon commandment, command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, a little there, a little there;

Now I ask you, in examining this verse in three languages, what do you think of the correctness of the Bible's translation? Is that verse's translation correctest in the King James, Unity/Luther, Menge, or Spanish translation?

If you want a possibly jarring experience, read Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It didn't jar me, because what Ehrman wrote was pretty much the LDS viewpoint on the Bible in the first place. But for some Evangelicals it was a hard pill to swallow, especially for those who were of the Biblical Inerrancy persuasion.

But all this aside, I think we can agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, and Christ alone is the source of our redemption.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your post ❤️ I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, though.

 

You had written (I can't seem to get the built-in quoting system to work on my browser):

"But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice."

 

And I responded with:

"Okay... and the translation of the Bible?"

 

Now, if the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are more than just the still small voice, is the translation of the Bible also more than just the still small voice? If so, then the answer to the OP would appear to be No, if I'm following you correctly 🙂

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for your post ❤️ I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, though.

 

You had written (I can't seem to get the built-in quoting system to work on my browser):

For a hint about using one aspect of the quoting system, see my post which contains a screen capture video of how to break up a quote so as to answer portions of a post separated from the entire post.

Alternatively, if you use your mouse to highlight a portion of a post, it will pop up a little dialog inviting you to create a post quoting the highlighted text.

36 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

"But the translation of the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, are more than just that still small voice."

And I responded with:

"Okay... and the translation of the Bible?"

 

Now, if the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the writings of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are more than just the still small voice, is the translation of the Bible also more than just the still small voice? If so, then the answer to the OP would appear to be No, if I'm following you correctly 🙂

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear.

Quote

Can one use the little voice to correctly translate the Bible?

My answer is: No.

Although one could gain an understanding of less-than-clear or ambiguous passages thereby.

All current modern translations of the Bible could be called workmanlike in their intent and outcome, and it is certainly likely that there may be instances of the still small voice guiding the translation process. At times the results may be specifically directed toward a particular group's biases. For example, the New World Translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (aka the Jehovah's Witnesses).

But the only way to obtain a Bible that is more than just the still small voice would be for an actual prophet to produce one. And that appears to be something we'll be waiting on the end times for, the JST notwithstanding.

Edited March 24 by Stargazer

[Leaf474]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

For a hint about using one aspect of the quoting system, see my post which contains a screen capture video of how to break up a quote so as to answer portions of a post separated from the entire post.

Yes, thank you, and I understand how to break up a post. However, I can't find a way to quote just a part of a post.

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Alternatively, if you use your mouse to highlight a portion of a post, it will pop up a little dialog inviting you to create a post quoting the highlighted text.

I'm using an Opera browser on an old Android phone. If I long press a word, the quote dialog box will pop up. If I attempt to move the selection to include more words, it includes everything from that word to the bottom of the page, and the dialog box goes away. 😒

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear.

My answer is: No.

Thanks!

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Although one could gain an understanding of less-than-clear or ambiguous passages thereby.

All current modern translations of the Bible could be called workmanlike in their intent and outcome, and it is certainly likely that there may be instances of the still small voice guiding the translation process. At times the results may be specifically directed toward a particular group's biases. For example, the New World Translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (aka the Jehovah's Witnesses).

But the only way to obtain a Bible that is more than just the still small voice would be for an actual prophet to produce one. And that appears to be something we'll be waiting on the end times for, the JST notwithstanding.

Thanks for your input ❤️

[Leaf474]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Alternatively, if you use your mouse to highlight a portion of a post, it will pop up a little dialog inviting you to create a post quoting the highlighted text.

I did think of a workaround, though, just now... thanks in part to your suggestion ❤️

 

I selected "Alternatively" from your post, and then quoted it. Then I selected everything from that word to the bottom of the page, copied and pasted it into a text editor. Then I could more easily select the rest of the post I wanted to quote, as above. It's kind of cumbersome, but it is technically possible! 😀

 

Have a good one! 🤗

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Yes, thank you, and I understand how to break up a post. However, I can't find a way to quote just a part of a post.

I'm using an Opera browser on an old Android phone. If I long press a word, the quote dialog box will pop up. If I attempt to move the selection to include more words, it includes everything from that word to the bottom of the page, and the dialog box goes away. 😒

I was curious if that feature wasn't working in Opera, so Installed it on my Android phone and it did work for me. See the screenshot... Once I long-pressed a word I was able to move the blue markers in order to highlight some text. Is there something wrong with your phone?

https://imgur.com/a/DDGglCr

9 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

I did think of a workaround, though, just now... thanks in part to your suggestion ❤️

 

I selected "Alternatively" from your post, and then quoted it. Then I selected everything from that word to the bottom of the page, copied and pasted it into a text editor. Then I could more easily select the rest of the post I wanted to quote, as above. It's kind of cumbersome, but it is technically possible! 😀

 

Have a good one! 🤗

If the workaround does the trick, that's good. 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, yes. It's been a while, though. Misquoting Jesus for one. I read it years ago, but my print copy is about 4,000 miles away from where I mostly live. I have Jesus, Interrupted, on Kindle, which I've been trying to get around to reading, but haven't managed it so far.

In my opinion he is a brilliant scholar and well worth reading, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. Don't ask me which ones I disagree with, I beg of you, because I don't remember! 🤪

If you like his books I recommend two more:

 

God's Problem.

How Jesus Became God.

[Stargazer]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:57 PM, OGHoosier said:

For what it's worth, you've pretty much got me on board. Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading was excellent.

 

Thanks for the reference! Just bought the Kindle edition. 

[Leaf474]

56 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I was curious if that feature wasn't working in Opera, so Installed it on my Android phone and it did work for me. See the screenshot... Once I long-pressed a word I was able to move the blue markers in order to highlight some text.

 

56 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Is there something wrong with your phone?

😄 Probably. Or it could be an interaction with this particular phone's hardware or Android system.

 

56 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

https://imgur.com/a/DDGglCr

If the workaround does the trick, that's good. 

Thanks for your help ❤️🤗