this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary... - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

All-American · 09-06-2007, 12:34 AM

I'm embarrassed that you are embarrassed. This does not seem to be an issue over which one should get worked up.

I appreciate as well as anybody the importance of studying other versions of the bible. I would nevertheless recommend to all that your collective shock and horror would be better reserved for a rainier day than this.

Jeff Lebowski · 09-06-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

Indy: Exhibit B.

Indy Coug · 09-06-2007, 12:35 AM

Wow, you got me there.

Jeff Lebowski · 09-06-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Oh, right. I forgot you coined the term.

No, no, no. I'm pretty sure that was goatnapper. More evidence of his genius.

Tex · 09-06-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

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.

That's not to stay his studies didn't enlighten his mind, but he didn't claim the changes were made due to textual criticism.

Moreover, the rejection of publishing the JST as our standard (or something JST-like ... perhaps a fresh revision by the current prophet?) in this thread is pretty telling, IMO:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11192

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon

From the 1998 LDS Church Handbook

In case anyone's curious, I just checked and this language did not change in the 2006 version of the handbook.

MikeWaters · 09-06-2007, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

I knew that the bible dictionary was completed before 1989. Was it around 1981 or so?

MikeWaters · 09-06-2007, 02:04 AM

by the way, Tex, I think it's pretty safe to say, that practically speaking, the church has rejected the JST.

Whether for practical reasons (so that we don't have a "different" Bible) or for other reasons, I don't know.

MikeWaters · 09-06-2007, 02:07 AM

well regardless of how you feel about other translations, I can tell you that Misquoting Jesus has really made me skeptical of the KJV. I grimace when I read quotes from general authorities justifying practices and beliefs using verses that, by all reasonable historical research, didn't exist.

I think when they do so, it is reasonable, and always there is a valuable point that is consistent with how I view the gospel (for example, I believe fasting is good, even if that phrase about fasting was never spoken by Jesus when casting out the evil spirits).

I'll probably never buy a quad again. I'll get a triple and take the NRSV. I'll keep my KJV for backup, because it is familiar and the topical guide and the like. There are times, for example, if you were reading the story of Christ's birth at Christmas, the KJV might be preferable.

ChinoCoug · 09-06-2007, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

well regardless of how you feel about other translations, I can tell you that Misquoting Jesus has really made me skeptical of the JST.

What's the problem with misquoting? When Jesus quoted the scriptures, he quoted the Septuagint, which had incorrect translations from the Hebrew Bible.

BlueK · 09-06-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Didn't Elder McConkie write (or at least oversee the writing of) the Bible Dictionary?

If so, what in there doesn't embarrass you?

would you be bothered if in the new Bible Dictionary this statement about the KJV were taken out?

09-06-2007, 12:34 AM	#21
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	I'm embarrassed that you are embarrassed. This does not seem to be an issue over which one should get worked up. I appreciate as well as anybody the importance of studying other versions of the bible. I would nevertheless recommend to all that your collective shock and horror would be better reserved for a rainier day than this. __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος

09-06-2007, 02:07 AM	#28
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	well regardless of how you feel about other translations, I can tell you that Misquoting Jesus has really made me skeptical of the KJV. I grimace when I read quotes from general authorities justifying practices and beliefs using verses that, by all reasonable historical research, didn't exist. I think when they do so, it is reasonable, and always there is a valuable point that is consistent with how I view the gospel (for example, I believe fasting is good, even if that phrase about fasting was never spoken by Jesus when casting out the evil spirits). I'll probably never buy a quad again. I'll get a triple and take the NRSV. I'll keep my KJV for backup, because it is familiar and the topical guide and the like. There are times, for example, if you were reading the story of Christ's birth at Christmas, the KJV might be preferable. Last edited by MikeWaters; 09-06-2007 at 03:23 AM. Reason: meant KJV, not JST

09-06-2007, 12:35 AM	#23
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Wow, you got me there.

09-06-2007, 02:04 AM	#27
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	by the way, Tex, I think it's pretty safe to say, that practically speaking, the church has rejected the JST. Whether for practical reasons (so that we don't have a "different" Bible) or for other reasons, I don't know.