volgadon

The Galilee Branch, and on Saturdays. It is the same day for all 3 Israel District branches. In 2005 what few members we had in Jerusalem (it is the smallest branch, the students don't count, they are temporary) met there on Saturdays.

I'm not offended, but just please don't send any Israelis the BoM. They can't join at the moment and if this were to get out it would have repurcussions especially for members of the church who intend on living there their whole lives, such as my immediate family.

BTW, could we have a disclaimer in the rules thread of that forum about no proselyting in general and no proselyting to citizens of Israel in particular in that forum?

BYU Jerusalem staff, faculty and students sign a pledge for bureaucratic reasons. I am a native-born Israeli member of the church who has lived there for most of my life, and though I had to sign no pledge, the church instructed us all not to proselyte, not to Israelis, not to non-Israelis in Israel. The pledge is not the point. The church agreed that non of its members would proselyte to Israels or in Israel. I rather do wish it was talked about more often. The church gave its word. That applies to lay members as well as to full-time missionaries. The church worldwide is known for its integrity, that leads to many doors being opened. The funny thing is that Israeli law allows for proselyting. The issue here is that the church (albeit under pressure) entered into an agreement with the Israeli governement not to proselyte any of its citizens, or even to proselyte in Israel. So although even though I, as a citizen with full rights, could proselyte, the church said no. So even if they do seek it out themselves, we are obliged to turn them away. Sad, but that is the way it is. The Book of Mormon especially is a sensitive issue, it being our prime proselyting tool. We barely have permission to use a Hebrew BoM within the walls of our own home, and when my sister was in the US someone had given her a Hebrew BoM, the church asked her not to take it back with her, because if she had to, say, open her bags at customs and that was in there, it would go a long way to undermining the church's reputation for honesty and integrity with the Israeli gvt. My mom, who is working on her PHD right now through a university in Rumania, had to recieve official permission in order to write about the LDS church in Israel. If she is an Israeli citizen, then sadly you are stepping out of bounds. All the more so if she is in Israel.

Wrong, Vanhin, there is a blanket policy concerning Israeli citizens. It even applies to sisters on Temple Square, if an Israeli tourist says they want more information, the sisters can't supply it. I happen to know the issue very well, the building of the BYU center was the immediate cause of the agreement, but it is in no way restricted to BYU. It is not only a legal matter, which could have repercussions on members of the church living in Israel (an issue of greater concern to me than BYU), but also a manner of being honest and keeping our word. Not all Jews are Israelis, of course, so in those cases the restrictions don't apply.

Vanhin's Edit:Moved over from the Jewish Perspective on the Book of Mormon commentary forum. I know the translator, that version isn't very good as it is basically done by dictionary. and just a general statement to everyone, the church has signed an agreement with the Israeli government not to proselyte to Israelies or do anything that appears like proselyting.

You are making vague, mysterious claims yourself.

No, its because I read Hebrew.

Not strictly true.

Or Joseph Smith translated the Lord's prayer the way he was familiar with.

And that is why textual criticism on its own is not sufficient for seeing the entire picture (so to speak).

One of them. As I assume English is your first language as well, what is your excuse for not understanding the difference between alteration and difference? I most certainly did not agree with you there.

Westcott and Hort worked in the 1880s. That was 130 years ago. Much has changed. "The words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the New Testament." I find it interesting that you did not quote the very next sentence in Hunter's book. "Hort probably underestimated the element of uncertainty. There still remain quite a few places where the experts disagree about the true reading." Hunter then proceeds to provide several examples. Neither he, nor Wescott and Hort were talking about having 99% of the original text! These quotes are about understanding the meaning of the words. In all faiirness, Hunter does claim that anyone using the RSV or NEB is as close to the original 'autographs' as "makes no material difference." He doesn't back up that statement. And which manuuscripts would those be? France is not exactly a textual critic, but he is a very conservative scholar. Many would disagree with his conclusion above. No direct quote on the 95%? You have failed to show that. Except I certainly am not arguing any sort of conspiracy theory. There are corruptions in the text, there are corruptions in most any ancient text. Textual critics have a methodology but it is far from perfect. They also don't make the claim that they know most of what there is to be known. Again, there is corruption in the texts, that really is all that is needed. If I have a specific instance in mind, then I should provide further documentation and arguments. You are the one expecting us to defend a vague position. Perhaps if you cited something specific, then we could get somewhere. Nobody has appealed to mystery.

If you saw fit to attack a 3rd party website, then why not?

I argue corruption of the texts becuase they obviously have been corrupted. As you yourself point out there are many documented instances. I don't however hold to that ridiculous notion that ALL have been documented. That notion kills scholarship. You are more interested in dogma, in this case, your personal one reinforced by secondary sources you've read. I'm also certain that continual research will bring to light more corruptions, it invariably does in the study of any text. There are many places I can intuite a corruption, but frankly lack the scholarly apparatus to pursue it at any length.

Haha. Not at all. I told you I had better ideas for my time than your proposal. If you want to think that is whining, be my guest. And even nuts can say things which are true. You could actually address at least some of the criticisms they bring up, as many are valid, but if you prefer ad hominem, once again, be my guest.

That is the Strong's system. At any rate, I provided a similar saying, so I think the rope reading isn't terribly convincing.

Probably a real, flesh-and-blood camel. There is a similar saying in the Babylonian Talmud about it being easier for an elephant to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the inhabitants of Pumbeditha to do something or other. The Lord loved hyperbole.

Most of them have a heavy protestant bias and translate according to ideology, not accuracy. For me to document EXACTLY what parts are translated icnorrectly, are crap, would take up far more time than I am willing to put into it. Here are some links to look at. The NIV is a Really Bad Translation (1/2) Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011 | Liveblog | Christianity Today New International Version God's Word (1995)

Yet still do a crap job for the most part.

Whih is why your claim of 99% is laughable. Perhaps a signifact amount of an early, textual family can be reconstructed, but certainly not the original.

Wrong (isn't this fun?). The only thing black & white is that Matthew and Mark differ. To claim that Matthew altered Mark is not cold, hard, indisputable fact. You seem to have a hard time diistinguishing between educated guesses and cold, hard facts.

I also get the distinct impression that were any textual critics to be reading this thread they would be in stiches over Snow's assertions, "if only!" would be their reaction.

Doesn't sound too different from you, honestly.

Dunno about the 50/50 I never approached it that mathematicaly.