Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Mmmm, no, I think there's just an aversion to using man-made processes to interpret the divine. Joseph Smith spent time studying other languages and versions to understand the Bible, but when he created the JST it was by revelation and revelation alone.
|
You seem to be saying "We don't need to study the hundreds (thousands) of ancient Greek manuscripts that have been discovered that pre-date those used by the translators of the KJV. If we need to learn anything about the bible, we will just rely on revelation." That's just nuts. And I don't believe that is how God operates. He expects us to use our heads.
Don't you find any irony in using this argument to defend a document (KJV) that was translated entirely by non-LDS scholars hundreds of years ago? Translators who were relying on ancient texts and were doing their duty in an
attempt to improve on previous translations? Or do you believe that the KJV translators alone were inspired but all of the others were not?
Tex, it is amazing what lengths you will go to in order to defend the status quo on EVERYTHING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Quite simply, I think there are some sound logistical reasons. It's hard enough to get members to study their scriptures as it is. You really think outside of Cougarguard "intelligentsia" that the bulk of the church is going to acquire and study multiple versions?
|
Who says the bulk of the church has to do it? I am just saying that the church should be more anxious than anyone to study old Greek manuscripts in order to improve the translation. Rather than doggedly clinging to the such a relatively bad translation.