quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
The one where God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai amidst signs and wonders and all that cool stuff. The one where King James and his henchmen wrote a translation of it thousands of years later. Blue skies, wet water. You know the one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since no one claims that the various translations were anything but translations done by people . . .
Wow. What planet have you been living on?
The one where God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai amidst signs and wonders and all that cool stuff. The one where King James and his henchmen wrote a translation of it thousands of years later. Blue skies, wet water. You know the one.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Blayne, what are your beliefs on this matter? Who do you believe will be saved?
Putting aside the actual thread -- which seems best all around -- am I to understand that Sid is Blayne?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I miss the good old days of the internet when people would just stick to one anonymous handle. Religious discussions are confusing enough, without confusing them further.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Sid is Blayne. I don't know why he's taken to posting back-and-forth between them lately.
According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
Hopefully this will not end in tears.
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
He's been pretty open about it, I just can't remember which thread he explicitly said it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to him he is attempting to phase out Blayne and keep the more juvenile threads under the Blayne moniker while slowly phasing in more mature threads and posts as Sid.
And I'll say again that it seems really backwards to consciously put the most juvenile posts under the name that would turn up when people actually do a google search on his name.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The beasts are formed after man (though before Eve, and incidentally, why is an omnipotent God not foreseeing that the beasts won't be good helpmeets for Adam? For everything else he seems to have grasped the concept of two sexes.) and Adam names them as they are made.
I must admit, I have heard people repeatedly talk about the "two versions of creation" in Genesis and have often wondered what the heck they were talking about.
I finally looked and thought, "Oh that? What's the big deal?" I figured it was just a recap in backwards order, very typical of Hebrew literary style, the going forwards then going backwards thing to help you remember it all. I can't remember what it is called, though.
This is one example of many where the areligous find contradiction where I see none.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Peter Ruckman would be the most famous proponant of the position that the KJV is advanced direct revelation that supercedes the Hebrew and Greek texts. I don't know if any of his writings are available online, but there is enough online about the controversy surrounding his claims to get the gist of it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: This is one example of many where the areligous find contradiction where I see none.
I'd say that this is a situation where people who want to find contradictions find it, while those who don't don't.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Ignorance calling: How much of th esource material from the Bible is in Hebrew?
I always understood that the Apostles' Epistles*, for example, were written in Greek or Latin.
* try saying that with a straight face...
Well, obviously I don't count those books. Other than parts of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah which are in Aramaic, the whole Hebrew Bible is Hebrew.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going by the Christian canon, about 2/3 is in Hebrew with a smattering of Aramaic. 1/3 (That would be the New Testament) is in Greek. None of it in Latin.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with this in theory. That is, if we are to count the sources of some of the earlier (and KJV) English Bible translations. Not that it matters much as I concede your point, just not the outcome as related to this discussion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, some english translations used latin texts as source material. And some use the greek translation of the hebrew texts as source material. (Also some non-english texts are translations from the english text, not from the original languages.)
But the originals (as far as we know, since we don't actually have them) were in hebrew, aramaic, and greek.
Thanks for the clarification, Occaisional.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is this back and forth in translating from one langauge to another and back again that convinces me there is no such thing as an innerant or perfect Bible. Not even the earliest sources are consistant. To me the miracle is that it isn't more garbled than it is. I am at a loss (haven't found any contextual evaluations) how normal this is for any ancient textual transmission.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know any other language besides English, but I am fascinated with reading about Biblical criticism and historicism. Comes from the Mormon belief that Scripture is only true if "translated correctly," although what that means is not as clear cut as it sounds.
I believe Mormons were cut short in pursuing the direction this belief could have gone for two reasons. First, the typical Christian traditionalist "bullied" the Mormons about innerancy and scriptural perfection into submission to the idea. They claimed it was nothing more than, as I said above, a sign of non-Christian or atheism to say othewise. From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts. Second, Biblical Higher Critism pretty much proved the traditionalist Christian's point by not only evaluating the text, but putting its teachings and divine truth of its stories to question.
This has put Mormons into a complicated corner.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, the typical Christian traditionalist "bullied" the Mormons about innerancy and scriptural perfection into submission to the idea.
I'm back to disagreeing with you - scriptural inerrancy is not part of Mormon doctrine. Some certainly believe it, but it is popular only with some parts of the country and in some folk doctrine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
'inerrancy'. I had to look it up, it sounded like you were saying something about it coming from within ('inner') when instead it's about 'lack of error' (in - err). Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I don't think we are in general disagreement. On the other hand, have you read "Mormons and the Bible" by Philip Barlow? Great read on the subject and he comes close to saying what I did.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scriptural inerrancy is not preached at General Conference, found in the manuals, and is directly contradicted by our scriptures. What some people come to believe is doctrine is not the same thing as actual doctrine.
Some Mormons believe that Bigfoot is Cain as well. That doesn't make it true or universal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, what I said has nothing to do with doctrine. It has to do with how the Scriptures are used. We are talking past each other I think.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that most people who claim to be literalists are actually something quite different. I don't know if it has a name yet (oooh, lets give it one). I'd call them Fable-Literalists.
That is, they don't believe 100% of what's printed in the Bible is true.
They believe 100% of what they were taught as children is true.
They also believe that 100% of what they were taught the True Bible, and any attempts to show them differently, question the Bible, their translation, or their interpretation, is not an attack on their church, its an attack on their culture.
Modern Americans change their churches with surprising ease. The religious wars of years past seem to them to be stupid. However any attempt to get them to change their culture is a call to arms.
So when you argue that Homosexuality is not that great a sin in the Bible, they fight back because it is in their culture, and if it is in their culture, it must be so in their Bible.
So when you say that Evolution and Christianity can be friends, they say that is not what their culture says, so it must be not what their Bible says.
So when you say that Mormons (Catholics, that church across the street) are Christian, they say that is not what their culture says, so it must be not what their Bible says.
The problem is that people take these cultural ideas, wrap them up in Universal Divine Law, and feel obliged to force them on others.
This goes for Shiah Suicide Bombers in Iraq.
This goes for stupid (supposedly Christian) protesters at US Military funerals.
This goes for smart mouthed rabid-atheists on any number of internet forums.
And unfortunately this goes for certain Neo-Con political figures that want to start Armageddon in Israel to fulfill what their culture believes will be the 2nd Coming. Their care for the dead Israelites is only slightly more than for the dead Muslims.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
You are overstating the case when you say "Mormons" because while it may be true for some Mormons, it is not true for all (or even most - the 8th Article of Faith is taught to all primary children while fundamentalist beliefs are not) and saying "Mormons do [blank]" implies that it is true for all or at least most.
Secondly, I don't agree with "bullies." There are many ways that beliefs are traded and transferred and bleed into other groups, and bullying is the least effective method and an extremely uncharitable word for the process in general.
Third, I disagree with this statement:
quote:From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts.
While inerrancy may be present in most religions, that is not the same as it being a predominant theme.
My fourth point I wish someone else would address, because I'm drawing on memories of conversations months old, but I think that inerrancy as it is present in the US today has a recent history - as in, the past 150 years or so.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I would be interested in your view of how Mormons (generalizing) use or study the Bible. More specifically, how the 8th article of faith is put into practice.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This goes for smart mouthed rabid-atheists on any number of internet forums.
Dan, are you saying that those atheists are holding their beliefs to be True and sort of a Bible because of this? I don't really understand how you lump them in with "Fable-Literalists".
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
My fourth point I wish someone else would address, because I'm drawing on memories of conversations months old, but I think that inerrancy as it is present in the US today has a recent history - as in, the past 150 years or so.
I would say that the strict funda-literalist interpretation, as if the Bible were a history or science text with no room for poetic devices (such as the earlier mentioned chiasm) or metaphor is a recent phenomenon -- a backlash against modernity, secularism, historical criticism, etc.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Katharina, I would be interested in your view of how Mormons (generalizing) use or study the Bible. More specifically, how the 8th article of faith is put into practice.
It is in our scriptures on the same level with all the other scriptures. It is referred to in conference talks with the same confidence as the other scripture. It is the only source for the life of Jesus Christ and is honored as such. It is not considered the keystone of our religion the way the book of Mormon is, due in large part because it wasn't designed, edited and compiled for a specific time and purpose the way the Book of Mormon was.
If you're asking for my opinion on how Mormons in general treat it, I think that with a worldwide church with people consisting mostly of first and second generation Mormons from a variety of backgrounds, there isn't a consistent method. I refuse to consider any subset as representative of Mormons in general.
If you're asking how Mormons in the intermountain region treat the Bible, I'd say that most don't read it. Of those who do, they (we) generally read the gospels and Genesis and then proof-text the rest. No, in my opinion, intermountain Mormons do not consider the Bible inerrant at all. Maybe the Book of Mormon.
The 8th article of faith, as I have seen and in my opinion, is most commonly put into practice by shrugging off the wonky parts of the Bible as funky translations but defending the book as a whole as scripture.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You didn't say that the following translations were done only by people, but that no claims otherwise. You're very wrong about that.
That's unfortunate. If I was incorrect about that, I'm slightly horrified and very disappointed, but the only claims that I've ever heard that could be construed as being otherwise are those that claim that King James and his minions were guided divinely. Which still isn't the same as God dictating. Since you say I'm wrong, could you please educate me and tell me who claims that God actually dictated translations. Which translations, and where are these claims?
Peter Ruckman would be the most famous proponant of the position that the KJV is advanced direct revelation that supercedes the Hebrew and Greek texts. I don't know if any of his writings are available online, but there is enough online about the controversy surrounding his claims to get the gist of it.
Thank you. That's odd, but there you are.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It is this back and forth in translating from one langauge to another and back again that convinces me there is no such thing as an innerant or perfect Bible. Not even the earliest sources are consistant.
That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away. Depending on who tells the story, the scribe was sometimes fired/punished/hand-chopped, etc.
I guess I need to do some more study of the earliest available texts, so I have some better information to go on.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away. Depending on who tells the story, the scribe was sometimes fired/punished/hand-chopped, etc.
That's not true. There was great care taken to try and make it perfect, but errors in transcription crept in regardless. Even when careful, although more quickly in the case of some manuscripts than in others.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I understand, the perfection and innerancy of scripture is a predominant theme in most religions with texts.
That's hardly close to being true.
I do, however, think that Mormon doctrine emphasizes that no scripture should be treated as inerrant or perfect; the Book of Mormon internally admits that it has flaws. Not even Joseph Fielding Smith was an inerrentist (though curiously, Stephen Robinson seems to be). However, in practice, Mormons tend to treat all their scripture the same way fundamentalists do. We assume that scripture's meant to be a legal text or a handbook of instructions, and we parse it as such by prooftexting wildly (all four Standard Works, here). Indeed, prooftexting's the hermeneutic taught in Mormon seminaries and in CES; thus I think it has institutional support that makes generalization, to some degree, possible.
Indeed, I think day-to-day Mormons, unlike Protestants, don't treat the Bible as "the only rule of faith and practice." Instead, we read scripture to find in it support for the behavioral claims that are taught over the pulpit. Thus, if Alma or Nephi or Isaiah or Abraham tell us they did something similar to contemporary practice, it's read to be God's support for our contemporary practice.
Occ, Barlow argues that what he calls a 'naive literalism' - that is, assumed inerrancy, separate from the theological arguments that bolster fundamentalist inerrancy - has generally had strong cultural support within Mormonism, and has become, more or less, the de facto institutional position since the 1960s. It wasn't 'bullied;' rather, folks like Joseph Fielding Smith and J Reuben Clark embraced it because of their sympathies with fundamentalism in general, and because they had a similar cultural background.
quote:That's very interesting to me, because I've had countless discussions with Christians who have sworn up and down that the earliest scribes had to be letter perfect, and if they missed even a single character, the whole manuscript was thrown away
This is generally what we hear from KJV onlyists.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does he really expect us not to see through something as blatantly transparent as that?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
