tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post113201428680499414..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Bible, a Bible, an Inerrant Bible - But Which Bible?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16626006757521686332010-03-11T16:18:11.881-06:002010-03-11T16:18:11.881-06:00I want to comment reg. “inerrant Bible”
le-havdil...I want to comment reg. “inerrant Bible”<br /><br />le-havdil, First some important information: A analysis (found here: www.netzarim.co.il (that is the only legitimate Netzarim)) of all extant source documents and archaeology using a rational and logical methodology analyzing the “gospel of Matthew” proves that the historical Ribi Yehosuha ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth and his talmidim (apprentice-students), called the Netzarim, taught and lived Torah all of their lives; and that Netzarim and Christianity were always antithetical.<br /><br />Regarding “NT”:<br /><br />“Even according to the most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:<br /><br />"A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).<br /><br />Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions to make the Jewish texts compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma." Duh.” [Quote from the previous mentioned Netzarim-website.]<br /><br />Clearly the “NT” is not inerrant.<br />The Nәtzâr•im′ never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Ta•na"kh′ is Scripture and only their own TheNәtzâr•im′ Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′u (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a.<br /><br />The Nәtzâr•im′ haven't changed from this position, and won't change from this position.<br /><br />Anders BranderudAnders Branderudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15696376904417632753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1145058692853094172006-04-14T18:51:00.000-05:002006-04-14T18:51:00.000-05:00I'm a former Mormon turned Baptist, and I think it...I'm a former Mormon turned Baptist, and I think it's important to point out that most modern translations will have some kind of footnote anytime something like this isn't very clear. I'm partial to the English Standard Version, which takes the high road with the RSV and NRSV by simply omitting the numbers in 1 Sam. 13:1. The omissions are accompanied by footnotes that clearly point out that the numbers are unclear in the original manuscripts.<BR/><BR/>Jeff, I think you're being a little unfair pointing the finger at all these modern translations and they way they try to "fill in the gaps". They aren't trying to be deceitful in any way. They're just trying to be as true to the original manuscripts as possible and in my experience they tend to be quite honest about what they're doing if you pay attention to footnotes. Your LDS edition of the KJV has no footnote about the translation issues surrounding 1 Sam. 13:1, so, if you were relying on that alone, you wouldn't get the whole picture.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15502547077652141696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132346965928645532005-11-18T14:49:00.000-06:002005-11-18T14:49:00.000-06:00The "Revised Standard Version" which we know as th...The "Revised Standard Version" which we know as the RSV, had the New Testament published in 1946, and the Old Testament in 1952. This is an update of the American Standard Version (ASV), which was published in 1901.<BR/><BR/>What Talmage called the "Revised Version" may have been the "English Revised Version" which was published by the Church of England in 1881-1885, and is an update of the KJV.<BR/><BR/>The "American Standard Version" of 1901, is merely a variant of the Church of England's "English Revised Version" embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work. <BR/><BR/>The above information comes from the preface to the Revised Standard Version.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132186321603457672005-11-16T18:12:00.000-06:002005-11-16T18:12:00.000-06:00Along those lines, I've wanted to see a Bible prin...Along those lines, I've wanted to see a Bible printed with the KJV and RSV (I believe the RSV is what James E. Talmage was always referring to as the Revised version) side-by-side.<BR/><BR/>The thing that made me like non-standard translations of the Bible was my mission in Brazil. The Church uses one translation there, but it's rather thick and didn't fit well in my bag. I bought a smaller one with a similar translation and used that.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the LDS version of the KJV still seems to be the clearest translation to me. Other translations do have a lot of strong points (easier reading, newer translations, helpful guides), but they often lose important doctrinal points.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132121929480432602005-11-16T00:18:00.000-06:002005-11-16T00:18:00.000-06:00I'd like to see the church publish bilingual editi...I'd like to see the church publish bilingual editions of the Book of Mormon. Foreign langauge in the left hand column, and English in the right. I think a lof of people overseas would request copies in order to help them learn English. I know that the people to whom I give out 2-language pairs of books really love it.<BR/><BR/>I wrote someone at church HQ about it, but got a letter back saying "There's no demand for it." Well piffle. There's no demand because no one has tried it.<BR/><BR/>I wrote the translation department, even offering to do fund-raising to get enough money to do it, and cover typesetting costs plus printing costs, but they still don't catch the idea.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone here want to invest in printing a minimum batch of a bilingual edition Book of Mormon? Such as Spanish/English, French/English, Chinese/English? Those seem to be the biggest users.<BR/><BR/>If the church sells their print run, fine, if not, the investors would be stuck owning the books to cover the church's expenses.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132121726074272412005-11-16T00:15:00.000-06:002005-11-16T00:15:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132120506141843332005-11-15T23:55:00.000-06:002005-11-15T23:55:00.000-06:00I just love the New English Bible. One of my favor...I just love the New English Bible. One of my favorite translations.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132117669704317282005-11-15T23:07:00.000-06:002005-11-15T23:07:00.000-06:00I think the lack of willingness to read non-KJV tr...I think the lack of willingness to read non-KJV translations among the younger LDS generations is due to having familiarity not only eith the KJV text, but with the LDS footnotes, Bible dictionary, etc. This is in contrast to older generations which take the view of translators purposely mucking up the text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132104974894394102005-11-15T19:36:00.000-06:002005-11-15T19:36:00.000-06:00As indeed it should be at an institution devoted t...As indeed it should be at an institution devoted to teaching the revealed word of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132091591073509572005-11-15T15:53:00.000-06:002005-11-15T15:53:00.000-06:00The NIV is preapproved for religion classes at BYU...The NIV is preapproved for religion classes at BYU, and the list of preapproved books is very short.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132073601322520792005-11-15T10:53:00.000-06:002005-11-15T10:53:00.000-06:00Anon at 8:10 am. "Although all translators (even t...Anon at 8:10 am. "Although all translators (even those of the KJV) have some theological preconceptions, nearly all of the modern translations have been done by those who are sincerely trying to be accurate in their translation. ... The differences in the translation come about because of problems with the Hebrew text, not because the translators are playing games with us. "<BR/><BR/>Granted that translators are sincere. However, I have run across a few passages, not just footnotes, where theological preconceptions come into play.<BR/><BR/>I don't have the verse reference, but I remember cross-checking a verse of Paul's that read "dead works" in the KJV. One translation used "sinful acts" and another translation used something along the line of "meaningless ritual".<BR/><BR/>If the original Greek does literally translate as "dead works", then we'd have to ask Paul if what he meant was more along the lines of sinful acts, or along the lines of meaningless ritual, such as the parts of the Mosaic Law that had been done away with, or whether he was referring to Pharisaical extensions of the Mosaic Law.<BR/><BR/>Even when we talk in the same language, there is plenty of opportunity to ask "What do you mean by that?"<BR/><BR/>The theological preconceptions are more apparent in the paraphrase translations or what they call "thought-for-thought" translations than in what are called "word for word" translations.<BR/><BR/>It's really a tough job, because of the idioms in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and because some word usage has changed since King James English. <BR/><BR/>Example "let" in King James in Romans 1:13 actually means "hindered", and in 2 Thes 2:7 means "restrain".Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132071052015891942005-11-15T10:10:00.000-06:002005-11-15T10:10:00.000-06:00I think it's too bad that many Mormons are locked ...I think it's too bad that many Mormons are locked into a KJV-only sort of belief in the Bible. (I've known people who actually believe that the Church uses translations of the KJV in non-English-speaking countries.) I, for one, didn't much appreciate the Bible until I started reading the New English Bible many years ago. I continue to stumble over the 17-century English of the KJV, and nowadays I take a KJV/NIV parallel Bible with me to church (unfortunately, the NIV is far from my favorite translation).<BR/><BR/>Contrary to what many LDS think, the modern translations don't "take out" parts of the Bible, nor do they rewrite it. Although all translators (even those of the KJV) have some theological preconceptions, nearly all of the modern translations have been done by those who are sincerely trying to be accurate in their translation. (The problems you'll find, as has already been noted, are usually in the footnotes, not the translation itself.)<BR/><BR/>The example Jeff gave in the blog was a good one. The differences in the translation come about because of problems with the Hebrew text, not because the translators are playing games with us. Facing a text that has a verse missing in some manuscripts and that is incomplete or nonsensical in other manuscripts, the translators did their best and came to different conclusions. But I doubt if any of them are trying to pull anything over on us.<BR/><BR/>When I try reading the KJV, it's like trying to study Shakespeare in school. But when I read one of the better translations, it's like reading something that has been written for me to study, enjoy and understand. Some distinctly LDS doctrines are even clearer — particularly the "separateness" of the persons of the Trinity/godhead — in modern translation than in the KJV.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I'll agree with what Mike Parker said. The NET is terrific and does an excellent job of explaining many of the translation problems of the text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132044085907356982005-11-15T02:41:00.000-06:002005-11-15T02:41:00.000-06:00Just a thought on the New English Translation, 1 C...Just a thought on the New English Translation, 1 Cor. 15:29 spell it out for those who were being baptised for the dead. Was it a non-Christian practice? Paul seems it was consistent with the gospel. As I read the scriptures in other translations, They all point out at the wondrous times of the Restoration.AlexGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419111994859972886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132037157050522892005-11-15T00:45:00.000-06:002005-11-15T00:45:00.000-06:00I'm a huge fan of the New English Translation ("NE...I'm a huge fan of the <B><A HREF="http://www.bible.org/netbible/" REL="nofollow">New English Translation</A></B> ("NET") Bible. The translation is solid, the footnotes are extensive (90% of many printed pages is made up of footnotes), and it's available free on the web.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.com