cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary... (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11552)

Tex 09-09-2007 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug (Post 121594)
that's exactly my point. you're trying to establish the JST's revelatory authority using the same methods of textual criticism ("circumstantial evidence") that scholars use for Biblical criticism. We don't know how Joseph Smith did the "translation." We only know "probablilities," "likelihoods."

Again, this is exactly wrong. The revelatory authority of the JST is and always was established solely on the calling and authority of the prophet Joseph Smith.

We can debate into which of the four categories suggested by Matthews that a passage might fall (restoration of lost text, commentary, etc.) based on textual criticism, but its position as revelation is unimpeachable, based on the calling of the prophet who translated it.

Sleeping in EQ 09-09-2007 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 121598)
FWIW, we were talking about 1 corinth 15:29 in GD today, and I read the NRSV version as well as the oxford footnote. Two people asked to see my copy of the oxford annotated NRSV.

I'm preaching the anti-KJV gospel, and it's going well.

A good fellow well met.

My little post from the Translators Introduction to the 1611 KJV argues for the Bible to be in the common language of the people. The current situation with the King James-only crowd is ironic.

Jeff Lebowski 09-09-2007 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo (Post 121587)
True enough. For someone who admittedly posts things he doesn't believe for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, you should have a tighter reign on your emotions.

Where did I say that?

JohnnyLingo 09-10-2007 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 121640)
Where did I say that?

You know how the search feature works, don't you?

Don't get lazy on me, Lebowski. I am not your mother.

Jeff Lebowski 09-10-2007 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo (Post 121641)
You know how the search feature works, don't you?

Don't get lazy on me, Lebowski. I am not your mother.

There you go hijacking my phrase again. Sadly, you still don't understand what it meant.

I am guessing you are referring to my post on CB where I said that well-crafted trolling can be entertaining. I also said that I did not consider myself to be a good CB troller. And trolling does not have to consist of stating things you don't believe.

But just to clear things up for you, I don't recall ever posting something that I don't believe. Especially in the religion forum.

Tex 09-10-2007 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo (Post 121587)
True enough. For someone who admittedly posts things he doesn't believe for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, you should have a tighter reign on your emotions.

Ironically, what bothers Lebowski most is that I actually believe the things I post. :)

ChinoCoug 09-10-2007 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 120884)
On my mission, in the English-speaking part, I don't ever recall running into someone that used the KJV.

Almost all were Catholic.

I think the only group who still uses the KJV is evangelicals over the age of 80 (besides us). Under 80 use the NIV.

Archaea 09-10-2007 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug (Post 121699)
I think the only group who still uses the KJV is evangelicals over the age of 80 (besides us). Under 80 use the NIV.

I find it ironic that the KJ translators emphasized the need to read the Bible in common language, yet those supporters of the KJV want a distant, elevated language that is foreign to most English speakers.

I don't like the NIV as much as I like the NRSV, although the verse is plainer and not as poetic.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 03:06 PM

Here is an example, at least in my mind, where the KJV is obtuse, and the NRSV is much morme clear. Hebrews 11:1 is one of the most quoted Biblical passages by Mormons, and I have to say I prefer the NRSV rendition 100x more than the KJV.


KJV

[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[2] For by it the elders obtained a good report.
[3] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


NRSV
11Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2Indeed, by faith* our ancestors received approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.*


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.