Limiting God


Recommended Posts

We are discussing whether or not it is reasonable to interpret the Bible as if it were God's truth. It was suggested that interpreting any book that way leads to religious terrorism, such as the 9/11 tragedy. My response was that the 9/11 tragedy was not a result of literally interpreting the Qur'an in a legitimate way. That the radicals have no more theological grounding than do the Westboro Baptists, and that those who cheer their wicked deeds do so out of social and political anger, not theological understanding.

Wicked people can use any writing for their purpose. Such abuse has no bearing on a discussion about whether the Bible is God's truth or not.

Ah. In that case, I agree with you. Thanks for the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't posted here in a bit but have been lurking. I thought I would ask though, does your view represent your personal opinion that is divergent from the LDS church's or is that accepted belief of the church? As PC posted, I have also read the "as far as it is translated correctly" from LDS sources but did not know how far that went. I would be pretty surprised if such interpretations meant that the LDS view is that destruction of the Amalekites was not called for by God. Is this so?

Is the LDS OT translations different regarding recorded events such as this? Don't you guys use the KJV of the bible?

I probably take it much further than the average Mormon and certainly much further than the Churches teaching. I do find that my point of view is much closer to many (so-called) "internet Mormons"

And yes the KJV is the official English version of the Bible the Church USES -- I personally dislike the archaic language of it and use modern versions for personal study/reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably take it much further than the average Mormon and certainly much further than the Churches teaching. I do find that my point of view is much closer to many (so-called) "internet Mormons"

And yes the KJV is the official English version of the Bible the Church USES -- I personally dislike the archaic language of it and use modern versions for personal study/reading.

Thanks so much for your answer. It's one of those things that I thought I knew and had assumed, that as PC had offered, that it was more along the lines of relatively inconsequential differences. I knew that there was always a great hermeneutical difference in reading the texts, between LDS and conventional Christianity however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pspence2
Hidden

post-modernism is a huge player in today's rampant universalism. I've been noticing this for a while. You should check out "what the bleep do we know". IT's about quantumphysics and how we possibly shape our reality as we perceive it. Who really knows what/if god is? maybe there are 6 billion different realities and thus 6 billion different gods? the world may never know. The marketing team for tootsie roll pops were on to something. The world may never know....anything.

Link to comment
Guest pspence2
Hidden

I probably take it much further than the average Mormon and certainly much further than the Churches teaching. I do find that my point of view is much closer to many (so-called) "internet Mormons"

And yes the KJV is the official English version of the Bible the Church USES -- I personally dislike the archaic language of it and use modern versions for personal study/reading.

This translated correctly business drives me crazy. If it's not translated correctly then how about somebody do sometranslating??! This way they can dismiss any revelation that anybody gets from the Bible by saying "oh, no. no no no you aren't translating it correctly".

Link to comment

I probably take it much further than the average Mormon and certainly much further than the Churches teaching. I do find that my point of view is much closer to many (so-called) "internet Mormons"

And yes the KJV is the official English version of the Bible the Church USES -- I personally dislike the archaic language of it and use modern versions for personal study/reading.

I personally don't use modern versions of the scriptures. I can't know for sure that they were translated correctly. I also think that if modern style scriptures was accepted by the LDS church. The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the D&C would have been translated. Brother Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't use modern versions of the scriptures. I can't know for sure that they were translated correctly. I also think that if modern style scriptures was accepted by the LDS church. The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the D&C would have been translated. Brother Ray

You realize that people in Bible times did not speak the English of the 1600's or even 1800's and that the KJV is a translation of a translation of a translation....etc.

As more and more scraps of early scripture become available for translators to use the modern versions are actually closer than the KJV to the originals. True, you must watch for the translators prejudices, but that is easily solved by using more than one translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that people in Bible times did not speak the English of the 1600's or even 1800's and that the KJV is a translation of a translation of a translation....etc.

As more and more scraps of early scripture become available for translators to use the modern versions are actually closer than the KJV to the originals. True, you must watch for the translators prejudices, but that is easily solved by using more than one translation.

I love the KJV and value it and though I have copies of several translations (knowing that most Bibles are versions and not true translations) as well as versions. I believe that there is more symbolism in understanding sacred things than in thinking we understand scriptures through translations (which I believe can easily be demonstrated to be most misleading - example Genesis 1:11-19).

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most modern translations (and the KJV) are translated by committees of language scholars. Some of them are even accepted by both Catholic and Protestant churches. So there is "professional review."

It is better to understand modern scripture as a version not a actual translation of any ancient manuscript. And we must also remember that these versions created by committees of scholars create that version knowing there are "variant" reading that create uncertainty within the committees - and that such variant readings can change drastically how doctrine is perceived and defined.

These variations are - at least in part - are the reason doctrines have been debated and altered greatly concerning how "Christian" societies have governed themselves (as well as broken up) over the last 2000 years.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, I'm not sure why you want to call translations "versions." They are translations of manuscripts from one language to another. If you are suggestion that they are paraphrases, I disagree. My understanding is that the percentage of passages that are in dispute is miniscule, and that most disagreements about doctrine come from how the scripture is interpreted, not how it is translated. Your disappointment with Christianity in general may be clouding your perceptions about the integrity of the translation process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, I'm not sure why you want to call translations "versions." They are translations of manuscripts from one language to another. If you are suggestion that they are paraphrases, I disagree. My understanding is that the percentage of passages that are in dispute is miniscule, and that most disagreements about doctrine come from how the scripture is interpreted, not how it is translated. Your disappointment with Christianity in general may be clouding your perceptions about the integrity of the translation process.

It is not because of me that modern scriptures such as the KJV are called "Versions" and not "Translations". The ancient manuscripts are also called versions and it should be noted that seldom (if ever) have scholars translated any single ancient version or document but rather compile their own completely new "version" utilizing fragments or parts from many individual texts.

I believe that it is important to note that within our lifetime (because of the Dead Sea Scriptures) that there has been a significant shift by scholars in identifying the most accurate ancient versions or manuscripts. It is also important to note that many ancient manuscripts considered too flawed to be canon also are believed to be more accurate (less modified) than those manuscripts included in canon. In other words the reasons early Christians scholars used for not including some documents in the Bible have in time been shown to be very inaccurate and out right wrong. Especially when compared with documents or books that were included.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are discussing whether or not it is reasonable to interpret the Bible as if it were God's truth. It was suggested that interpreting any book that way leads to religious terrorism, such as the 9/11 tragedy. My response was that the 9/11 tragedy was not a result of literally interpreting the Qur'an in a legitimate way. That the radicals have no more theological grounding than do the Westboro Baptists, and that those who cheer their wicked deeds do so out of social and political anger, not theological understanding.

Wicked people can use any writing for their purpose. Such abuse has no bearing on a discussion about whether the Bible is God's truth or not.

Prisonchaplain, I agree with you that what terrorists do is not based on a legitimate interpretation of God's will. The 9/11 terrorists were not representative of mainstream Islam any more than Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity.

Still, the fact remains that those people did in fact interpret the Qu'ran a certain way, and acted on it, and Westboro Baptists interpret the Bible in such a manner as to justify their hate.

My concern is that if we allow that wicked acts are justifiable in certain circumstances, like when God commands them, then we run the risk of people being more likely to justify such acts more often. Sure, genocide is horrible and evil when godless people like Hitler and Stalin do it. But when we do it, it's justifiable because God is on our side and/or told us to do it. Why don't we just say that certain acts are not right, period?

Basically, I'm just reiterating my answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In my opinion, things are not right because God commands them--God commands them because they are right. Genocide is not right, and so God would not command it.

If it makes you feel better, Prisonchaplain, I do think the Bible (and other scriptures) contain many messages from God, and should therefore be taken seriously. However, I do not think they are completely perfect and error-free.

Edited by HEthePrimate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeP...I understand your perspective on the Bible. It is an accepted one amongst some segments of traditional Christianity. I hold to a much stronger view of the Scripture's veracity and trustworthiness. As for which came first, the righteousness of the act or God's ruling I simply say God's ruling is righteous and I believe that if the Bible says God calls it righteous than it is righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that people in Bible times did not speak the English of the 1600's or even 1800's and that the KJV is a translation of a translation of a translation....etc.

As more and more scraps of early scripture become available for translators to use the modern versions are actually closer than the KJV to the originals. True, you must watch for the translators prejudices, but that is easily solved by using more than one translation.

When the General Authorities of my church tell me to read something other then the KJV. Then and only then I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the General Authorities of my church tell me to read something other then the KJV. Then and only then I will.

If you think the General Authorities are going to give you minute, fine-grained instructions on how to do Bible study using various translations for comparison, I think you do not understand how these things work. It is not meet that we should be commanded in all things. "Wicked" and "slothful" are some unpleasant adjectives that leap to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the General Authorities are going to give you minute, fine-grained instructions on how to do Bible study using various translations for comparison, I think you do not understand how these things work. It is not meet that we should be commanded in all things. "Wicked" and "slothful" are some unpleasant adjectives that leap to mind.

It's not that complicated. It's yes go ahead and study a modern bible, or keep on reading the KJV. Yes I know that I can read anything I want, and I do. But for study,I prefer the standard works. Brother Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeP...I understand your perspective on the Bible. It is an accepted one amongst some segments of traditional Christianity. I hold to a much stronger view of the Scripture's veracity and trustworthiness. As for which came first, the righteousness of the act or God's ruling I simply say God's ruling is righteous and I believe that if the Bible says God calls it righteous than it is righteous.

If you do not mind - I have asked some questions about Genesis chapter one. In particular verses 11-19. Because you seem to hold a different view about veracity and trustworthiness - I would be interested in your input.

This is not the only place I have come to believe that I do not understand the symbolism in scripture and ancient cultures as well as I think. In essence I cannot reconcile these verses. I have made some progress in thinking that because Moses was educated in Egypt that this symbolism is related to ancient Egyptian thinking and culture - but when I have suggested using such a context it has not been received well - especially by those like yourself that seem to think the Bible is more accurate, even in our time, than science.

Are the trees and grass we live with today the same type and kind of trees and grass that G-d created on day 3?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that complicated. It's yes go ahead and study a modern bible, or keep on reading the KJV. Yes I know that I can read anything I want, and I do. But for study,I prefer the standard works. Brother Ray

Perhaps you can show me where any leader has stated we can not use modern language versions for personal study.

Also Elder Holland frequently quotes modern language Bibles during his General Conference talks.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that complicated. It's yes go ahead and study a modern bible, or keep on reading the KJV. Yes I know that I can read anything I want, and I do. But for study,I prefer the standard works. Brother Ray

One of the most interesting documents of ancient scripture found in our time is a copy of Isaiah. This is currently believed to be the most accurate ancient scripture ever found. Since I am not proficient in ancient Hebrew (which BTW - Joseph Smith suggested should be studied in order to understand scripture better) I have purchased a special translation created from that document.

Along with the translation I have purchased notes and explanations about this particular document and the various complex Hebrew poetic structures and how such structures were believed to be anciently used. I have found this study most interesting when cross referencing the verses of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. An exercise also undertaken by several professors in the religious department at BYU.

Also it may interest you to know that in ancient times (including when the scriptures hidden with the Dead Sea Scrolls were utilized) that the ancient Christian Saints all maintained multiple versions of the sacred scriptures. In fact it does appear that the post apostolic era started a pagan custom of creating scripture canon - a practice that does not appear to have taken place at any time that there were prophets (including even among the ancient Nephits).

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share