MrShorty

A quick pass through Biblehub to see how other translators have rendered this verse, and it seems to be a mixed bag. Some translators like the kind of interpretation given here -- that these two were well known by the apostles. Several translations used verbiage like "outstanding among the apostles" which seems to suggest that these two were included within the circle of the apostles and had risen to some prominence. As @Just_A_Guy notes, this verse has been a challenge to patriarchal priesthood for a long time among Christians, so I'm not sure it is a new thing. The real problem that I see is that, while we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, we do not believe the Bible is inerrant. We believe that human ideas get introduced to the text through copying and translating. We don't have the original autographs to work from, so we are limited in how certain we can be about the original text. On top of that, we (or maybe it is just me) don't believe that the authors are infallible in their ability to communicate the impressions they receive or the observations they make and then record. IMO, I think this is one of those verses we may just have to come to accept is not entirely clear. We will have to do our level best using our traditions and what Church leaders say and what God speaks to our own hearts on how to understand this verse (and the underlying priesthood/priestesshood issue). Because of the vagueness in the text, we may also need to do better at tolerating the differences of opinion that vagueness leads to among Church members. I often feel like the worst thing we can do in a situation like this is to insist on a single, orthodox interpretation while "squeezing" those with heterodox views out of the Church.

Agreed. Unfortunately, we don't have any originals. All we have (even in the original Greek and Hebrew) are copies (of copies of copies of copies). On top of that, while others may have the ability to read ancient Hebrew and Greek, I cannot, so I am at the mercy of the translators and the textual critics that are all deciding what is the closest text to the original and how best to render the ancient meanings of that text into English (or French, if I want to dust off my mission language, but that is pretty rusty). The KJV is a nice translation, for a 17th century work. With all of the work in textual criticism and the understanding of the ancient languages that has occurred in the 300-400 years since then, the KJV is not our most solid translation (even if we like the old English rendering). I think there is a lot to enrich and inform our study of scripture (not water down) if we look beyond the KJV.

I'm not sure that "translating Biblical text into 20th or 21st century English" is quite the same thing as "watering down the text for the least common denominator". As near as I can tell, most of Christianity takes Biblical translation and textual criticism quite seriously -- even when rendering the text in early 21st century English. While there are no doubt different philosophies at play, I would be careful generalizing that anything but the KJV is somehow watered down.

My answers (or non-answers as the case may be): Why the KJV? Mostly I think it is tradition (and, as Tevye explains, we don't always know why tradition exists). There could be a financial aspect -- the KJV is public domain so there are no royalties or similar to pay for the use of the text. We have a special "fondness" for the KJV language (we even show a preference to pray using long dead thee/thy/thou pronouns when addressing God, as if these pronouns make prayer more effective). I also think there is a "conservative" (doesn't like change) element to this. I have long observed that the Church has a tendency, once it adopts a belief or practice, to stick with that belief or practice and not seek change. I think some of what keeps the KJV in use is this conservative inertia (which might essentially be the same thing as tradition (cue Tevye again)). As for what I expect for a future edition of the Bible? Since I see our use of the KJV mostly driven by tradition and conservatism, I guess I don't expect a future edition to be much different. Someone may make changes and corrections to cross references and the Topical Guide and similar, but mostly I expect future editions to look like current editions. If I could throw a wish list at the question, I would really like to see the Church put out a good study Bible version that addresses some of the challenges in the text, points out areas where the KJV translators just did not have the texts that we now have, addresses authorship issues (Documentary hypothesis would be interesting, but I expect Isaiah probably figures in big here since Isaiah authorship questions impact the BoM), address textual questions (like the long ending of Mark), and so on. Considering what I usually see coming from our curriculum writers, I don't know if we (collectively) have the stomach to tackle tough issues about the Biblical texts, so I'm not hopeful that the Church would put out something like that.

Thanks for the positive cases @Carborendum. I'm optimistic that I, too, will come out of this cancer free. The road to getting there is hard some days. I definitely appreciate the hope that you spread.

1st thought: I find it difficult to talk about all of Genesis as one monolith. Even if we leave out "documentary hypothesis" issues, Genesis covers a lot of ground, from creation through the flood then the patriarchs and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I think some of the answers to questions about Genesis depend on which part of Genesis I am reading. When it comes to the cosmology/creation portion, I find myself leaning heavily towards accepting that the creation account is "myth" -- and here I'm using "myth" the way Ben Spackman uses it (I find a lot of my current views on this are influenced by Spackman): https://benspackman.com/2020/04/science-and-history-as-myth-and-fiction-exploring-some-common-labels/ Recognize that, understanding "myth" in this way, modern science is also "myth" -- the way we explain how the world works. Concordism (the efforts to make modern science "myth" concord with ancient, Biblical "myth") also figures heavily in my thinking -- specifically, I feel no need to make ancient and modern explanations for the way the world works agree with each other. The ancients can have their "flat disc earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell" and I can have my Big Bang inspired universe (full of billions of "island universes") without needing to make the two "agree". As for some of the specifics. I don't know how I would know if Eden existed. Considering the superlatives used to describe Eden, I don't see any place on Earth today that could measure up to those superlatives, so I am inclined to believe Eden is gone. Super continents have existed at times throughout Earth's geologic history, but the most recent one (Pangaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent) broke up before hominids appear in the fossil record, so I doubt that the break up of the Earth in Peleg's day could be referring to the breakup of a supercontinent (more likely to be a description of political division rather than geologic). I like Spackman's idea of a "cosmologic" flood rather than some kind of real global or even local flood. In conclusion: is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible without "empirical" evidence? Probably depends entirely on what it means to believe in the revelations, but I have no problem believing in the revelations because, rejecting concordism as I do, I need no empirical evidence that these revelations must somehow concord with my cosmology. Should science and religion agree? When all is said and done, I expect them to agree, but, until then, I have no need for them to agree.

I see two different things to deal with -- your husband's smoking/lying (your relationship with your husband) and then the relationship with your friend(s). In the marriage help circles I frequent, this lying part of the vise (porn, alcohol, smoking are the common vises) is often cited as the real problem. The usual advice that I see is to avoid developing a parent/child relationship over the vise and approach it as equal partners. That's difficult when one won't even admit to the vise, but it allows you to focus on what you will do to approach the issue. How much "honesty" do you need (a confession every time he smokes so you can keep score? financial honesty so you know how much is spent?)? Are you making it "easy" for him to confess or hard? The basic idea here is that you can't force him not to smoke and you can't force him to be honest. But you can tell him how you feel when he smokes and how you feel that he doesn't want to confide in you. You can confirm to him that you don't think his smoking makes him a bad person (sometimes we have a problem with this in the Church where we -- often subconsciously -- turn the vise into a statement of character) and even reinforce the good that you see in him. Then hope that your honesty breeds some honesty from him. A good counselor can help with this process. If you want a starting place, I think my favorite "coach" who puts herself out there publicly for this sort of thing is Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife. As a sex therapist, she often frames her view of "intimate" marriages (and honesty, in her view is critical to building an intimate marriage) in terms of sexual differences or porn, but the principles usually translate well to WOW issues like this. If I've remembered correctly, you might find Marriage On a Tightrope podcast episode 83 where she did a Q&A episode for Allan and Kattie. Context -- MOAT is a podcast focused on mixed faith marriages (where one spouse has left the Church), and, naturally, WOW can become an issue in these situations. If memory serves, one of the questions in this Q&A was specifically about navigating alcohol use in this situation, and I think you will find her thoughts and suggestions helpful for your own wrestle with your husbands tobacco use. The other side is the friend issue. I am a strong believer in loyalty between spouses, so, IMO, if your husband has asked that you don't reveal anything, that should be your first goal -- be loyal to him. That becomes particularly problematic when you feel you need to talk to someone (for your own benefit, not to satisfy their curiosity) about your side of the issue, because it won't always separate cleanly from his side of the issue. My only thought is to err on the side of loyalty, which might mean making excuses or even, "you'll have to talk to him" responses. In the spirit of honesty and intimacy, there could be value in telling your husband what you want to say to friends and ask what he would want you to say. You're in a tough place. I wish you the best and pray that God will guide you through the nuances of your personal journey.

A quick thank you to all who are including me in their prayers. I can appreciate the awkwardness around praying for someone by internet handle, but, as already noted, God knows. For a quick update. Today starts cycle 6 of 8 (for this part of the overall treatment). There's a light at the end of this tunnel.

I have long felt that the content on the main page is different from what is going on here in the forum. It feels to me like this forum still has a strong core of long time members that will keep the forum going for a while (though, if Sears and Roebuck is any indication, a long history is no promise of future viability). My impression is that the forum has slowed down some, perhaps mostly because I don't see as many "new trolls" who come in and start something controversial that gets the group's dander up. I mean, how long has it been since our last good creation/evolution debate? It seems like it's been a while. To be fair, though, it's not like yet another creation/evolution debate is going to bring up anything new. We've been having the same evolution/creation debates since the early 20th century, always with the same (non) conclusion -- we just don't know and the Church doesn't want to take sides. Most of the good controversies that drive traffic on a site like this are old news. We've had the discussions before (sometimes ad nauseum) almost always with the same (non) results. I feel like the Ecclesiast when he said there's nothing new under the sun. I guess it seems to me that, while third hour is not necessarily shying away from the controversies, it also isn't getting as much traffic interested in rehashing yet again the common controversies. I could be reading the room wrong, but I'm not sure that the main group is too bothered by being left out of the center of those controversies.

I don't expect it would float into space, but it would float up until the overall density of the object was the same as the atmosphere at that level. Most solid containers that are strong enough to hold their shape against one atmosphere pressure are going to be more dense than air, I doubt you would be able to effectively get a vacuum to float, but it would be theoretically possible if you could build a container from a very lightweight material that was also strong enough to hold its shape against the pressure.

@Just_A_Guy Never really thought of myself as tenacious. Time to execute "apply tenacity to illness" routine.

I'm finding the same thing. Sometimes, all you can say is, "I feel terrible right now." While, at the same time, holding onto the hope deeper down that the this really sucks part will eventually be replaced with better.

I know we like to say this as an absolute, but, especially looking back at the history of the word of the Lord against scientific cosmology (Genesis is the big player here), we find that the word of the Lord was a very poor guide to scientific truth. Even when it comes to moral truth, issues like slavery and racial issues suggest that the word of the Lord is not always accurately conveyed by scripture or prophets. This is where I continue to believe that we have not adequately addressed scriptural errancy and prophetic fallibility. When it comes to LGBT issues, how can we know (other than fallible testimony, since it is all too easy to conflate emotional or intellectual preference for the Spirit's witness) the word of the Lord on a subject? How can we know that the view of the current cadre of prophets and apostles accurately represents God's view? When disagreeing, why should a faithful member simply defer to the prophet (that feels too much like what helped perpetuate the priesthood ant temple ban decades past its expiration date)? These are hard questions -- just like the questions these secular groups are wrestling with in transgender issues. My progressive inclination is to believe that the current cadre of prophets and apostles do not fully understand God's will for LGBT+ people, and that changes will be coming. Some of these changes are going to be in reaction to what science discovers along the way.

@NeuroTypical I have the privilege/challenge of working through name/pronoun change with my daughter. Yes it feels wierd, after all, I've known her by the name her mom and I gave her years ago for her entire life. I would also add that there is a little bit of disappointment (maybe, not sure what word to put here) as she/they kind of reject the name we chose for her (but that wouldn't apply to generic Church members). So, yes it is "weird", though I think I'd prefer a different word with fewer negative connotations (but I'm not enough of a wordsmith to come up with one). I'm not opposed to addressing her by name or using her/their preferred pronouns, but it is mostly just hard, this early in the process, to always remember the change. Their given name and pronouns come to me so automatically, that it is a slow process to retrain myself. I expect it would be even harder with a Church member that I may only interact with once per week or even less frequently. I can only hope that, as I have opportunity to interact with such people that they will be patient with me while I am trying my best to respect their choice.

@scottyg I am concerned when someone like you with the expertise to access and digest the data feels they can show that the governing bodies are more political than scientific. I'm not comfortable with the possibility that these bodies are making these decisions based on too much politics. If there is a strong scientific case to be made that these groups are wrong, how do we go about getting the correct information in front of them and help them make better informed decisions? You don't necessarily have to answer to me, because, even if I know how, I'm just not going to be the one to make anything happen. Another concern that this issue also brings up -- how far can we trust science (especially social sciences)? If science is not reliable as a source of truth, and religion has it's own fallibilities, is there a reliable source of truth? One caveat -- maybe science just needs enough time (it also sometimes seems religion needs time to find truth like with slavery) to work it all out. If time is the great equalizer, perhaps the question of the moment is should we opt for a conservative position (assume pathology or exclusion until science clearly shows that change is needed) or should we opt for a progressive view where change maybe is considered or adopted until the change is shown to be wrong? I don't know.

@Grunt I note and accept the correction. I still end up down the prophetic fallibility rabbit hole where I must decide if the prophet's view is always the same as Christ's view.

I think this gets muddied when you end up dealing with many social species -- honeybees are often the go to example where you have a large percentage of the female population is not part of the breeding stock. Only one female per hive gets to reproduce, while all the other females spend their lives as workers. From there, you would need to have a handy explanation that explains why honeybees and other species have non-breeding individuals in their populations. One examples is "kinship selection" where the theory says that the non-breeding individual (related to the breeding individual/pair) provides some advantage to the breeding pair, and, because the non-breeding individual shares genes with the breeding individual, the non-breeding individual still gains an evolutionary advantage by helping a breeder rather than being the breeder. Clearly a place for more discussion, if desired (5 years ago (have I really been around this forum more than 5 years???), was this long meandering thread where I and wenglund went back and forth on how there are theories and examples of non-breeders being parts of populations without, themselves, ever needing to breed:

Agreed, you don't have to be a part of these discussions. You are free to believe what you want. My point wasn't to claim that you have to "join" the world to be relevant. My point was that, to be relevant, you need to understand how the world is framing the discussion so you can enter the discussion where the world is at. Entering the discussion with "Christ would say..." and/or "transgenderism is a mental illness" are likely to be immediately dismissed without further consideration. But it isn't necessary for each individual to be a part of the discussion, so you are fine if you want to follow your version of Christ's truth. @scottyg already lost the "show me your references" battle once, not going to go down that rabbit hole again. As it pertains to the OP, USA Swimming has come to a consensus opinion that transwomen can compete against ciswomen if (enter requirements here -- seems to mostly be about testosterone levels over time). At the broader level, the APA in publishing the DSM-V was working with a trend to destigmitize/depathologize transgender and gender dysphoria diagnoses. The WHO very recently (announced in 2019 taking effect in 2022) announced a shift moving Gender incongruence from the mental disorders section to their Sexual health section because they no longer believe it is an illness. I'm sure if you want to penetrate any or all of these bureaucracies, they would be happy (because we all know just how happy bureaucrats can be to do their job) to help you understand the literature they used and the discussion processes that went into coming to their decisions on what policies to set.

I get this is what many of us, especially in conservative spaces, believe -- that transgenderism is some kind of illness or disorder or pathology. I don't think society is doing this on a whim. Over the last few decades, we have been wrestling with exactly the question of whether transgenderism is pathological or not, and the current belief is that it is not inherently pathological. Of course, any one of us can believe what we want. For those who want to enter a mental health field, it may be necessary to consider professional ethics of your accreditation/licensing organization (as with the recent policy change at BYU-P's speech and language clinic and how that runs against their accrediting organization's ethical policies) in how you approach the issue. Or, if you want to engage the culture in this particular culture war, calling transgenderism "an illness to be cured*" is more likely to get branded as "outdated or outmoded" and may not have any real impact in those spaces. As the psychological community currently interprets the evidence, transgenderism is not pathological, and the best treatments are gender affirming. That means, to me, that a serious engagement with this issue means either new, compelling data to show that it is best viewed as pathological, or a compelling new analysis of the old data to show that the current interpretation is wrong. We can believe what we want, but the broader culture is getting past the "transgender as illness" model. If we want to be a part of that discussion, we've got to change our rhetoric to fit into the discussion, or we will just get dismissed from the conversation. *where cured means the patient becomes comfortable identifying as their biological sex at birth

@NeuroTypical I feel like, though, if I'm going to do this like a rockstar, I probably need to work on my guitar riffs and solos.

I feel like I need/want to burn this onto the inside of my eyelids so I can see it every time I close my eyes. Thanks for the prayers and thoughts.

I know we butt heads sometimes on different conservative vs. progressive issues, but I'm going to lay my soul bare -- maybe to avoid the $200/hr therapist's bill that I'm tempted by. For Christmas, I gave myself a colorectal cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, I did not purchase the diagnosis at Costco or Walmart or similar that would be more than happy to take it back, so I'm stuck with it. I had no symptoms, so life seemed pretty good, then chemotherapy started. Can I just say that chemo is a strong contender for "the cure is worse than the disease"? Okay, I know that chemo is part of saving my life, where the cancer would eventually kill me, but, in the short term, it sure is rough. 4 of 8 chemo cycles are down already, just starting number 5. I am not looking forward to this weekend. After the chemo, then they want a round of radiation+chemo, before the surgeon goes in and cuts out the bottom end of my GI tract. Nothing to look forward to. Well, that's not true, I can look forward to 90% or better chance of a full cure by the end of it all, but that payoff at the end sure seems a long way out and it gets hard to keep it in mind when the short term effects of the treatments are so miserable. Anyway, not sure I expect anything from the group. Maybe just encouragement. Certainly prayers on my behalf. Maybe a place where I can anonymously complain about my lot in life and how hard it is (as if my life is really all that hard, I'm sure there are people worse off -- Ukrainians come to mind as well as other patients with a much less optimistic prognosis), but still I feel a bit beaten down by a normal part of a fallen, mortal world.

@Carborendum I'm going to bow out and just concede defeat on this debate. I will remind, though, that winning the debate against me is not going to change anything. These athletics organizations are allowing transwomen to compete, and I'm not convinced it is just to "appease the woke crowd" I don't know all of what they did to come to the conclusion they did, but they did and winning or losing a debate at thirdhour isn't really changing anything.

My faith in Christ requires that I answer that Christ's definition is most accurate (I've already said that I remain unconvinced that The Church's definition is the same as Christ's definition, but that's not a popular opinion around here). But even if "biological sex at birth" is Christ's definition of gender, it is still not the definition of gender being used in these secular spaces. If we want to engage in the discussion going on in secular spaces, I think we need to understand and work within their definitions, or they aren't going to hear what we have to say.

I think this is a very interesting point in the discussion, but I think we need to be careful not to completely conflate "intersex" and "transgender". I expect there is overlap and other ways that the two ideas intersect, but most people in society consider them separate categories. This is the Church's definition, sure. It's not the definition being used by sports' governing bodies as they discuss this issue. Certainly biological sex at birth (or maybe, more important, at/during puberty) is important in their discussions, but it is not how they define gender, nor is it the only consideration in their deliberations. As I've already said, I don't have access to the literature on this. I am assuming that governing bodies like USA Swimming have fuller access to the literature and that, what they have seen, allowed them to say that transwomen who meet a certain criteria are allowed to compete with ciswomen. I expect they were/are fully aware of the study you mentioned along with many others, and, when reducing it all down, they feel like transwomen can compete fairly against ciswomen under the right circumstances. From a statement a month or so ago: “USA Swimming firmly believes in inclusivity and the opportunity for all athletes to experience the sport of swimming in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression. We also strongly believe in competitive equity, and, like many, are doing our best to learn and educate ourselves on the appropriate balance in this space." (USA Swimming statement issued Jan 2022: https://www.usaswimming.org/news/2022/01/20/usa-swimming-statement-on-transgender-athlete-policies).