this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

LCD approach. For lingo and Tex, that means lowest common denominator .

Yeah. We stoopid.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think members who know better are wise not to limit themselves to the KJV. In fact, I venture to say that if you have very good reason to believe one text is better than another, you are under CONDEMNATION for not seeking out that text and studying it.

Did the Spirit confirm this to you?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In fact, if I found out that none of the Seventy owned a non-KJV version of the Bible, I would be very disappointed.

Elder Hales quoted from the NIV in his 1997 Fall General Conference address.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

LCD approach. For lingo and Tex, that means lowest common denominator .

I think members who know better are wise not to limit themselves to the KJV. In fact, I venture to say that if you have very good reason to believe one text is better than another, you are under CONDEMNATION for not seeking out that text and studying it.

Like I said before, I find it highly ironic that we would turn such a blind eye to textual criticism since the issue of biblical translation errors is one of our articles of faith. You would think we would fully embrace it.

[JohnnyLingo]

I am highly entertained by Waters pronouncing condemnation on people.

Who's the mullah?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like I said before, I find it highly ironic that we would turn such a blind eye to textual criticism since the issue of biblical translation errors is one of our articles of faith. You would think we would fully embrace it.

I think there are some legitimate jitters about using textual criticism to analyze scriptures in a way that could have doctrinal impact. It would be tragic if the church were to embrace a version of a scripture based on textual criticism that later ended up being incorrect.

Intepretation of scripture is done via revelation, not academic exploration. I don't think the church opposes the latter, though, as YOhio points out. Just refuses to standardize on it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

is embarrassing.



http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55

Note, NRSV, finished in 1989 was presumably not studied by the committee that wrote this.

The Bible Dictionary was compiled prior to 1989. I'm not sure that this topic alone warrants the printing of a new edition.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think there are some legitimate jitters about using textual criticism to analyze scriptures in a way that could have doctrinal impact. It would be tragic if the church were to embrace a version of a scripture based on textual criticism that later ended up being incorrect.

But don't we already believe that the bible is imperfect to start with? Why not try to improve it? So what if some mistakes are made along the way? You seem to be saying, "We may not be perfect in our improvements, so let's not try to improve."

It seems an underlying issue may be that we don't dare follow such a path since we may make a mistake and that would indicate that not everything we do is directed by God.

Originally Posted by Tex

Intepretation of scripture is done via revelation, not academic exploration. I don't think the church opposes the latter, though, as YOhio points out. Just refuses to standardize on it.

Nonsense. Why not use both? Isn't that how we got the KJV in the first place?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I am highly entertained by Waters pronouncing condemnation on people.

Who's the mullah?

One of the most definitive characteristics of a mullah is that they seem to have no idea what the term means.

And just in case it is not clear: I am speaking of you and not Mike.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

One of the most definitive characteristics of a mullah is that they seem to have no idea what the term means.

And just in case it is not clear: I am speaking of you and not Mike.

Oh, right. I forgot you coined the term.

No chance of you giving me a good definition, eh?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

One of the most definitive characteristics of a mullah is that they seem to have no idea what the term means.

And just in case it is not clear: I am speaking of you and not Mike.

Wow, that was almost like sticking your thumb to your nose with your fingers extended and wiggling and saying "it takes one to know one".

Excellent.