Isaiah Translation


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think they are translations, obviously, but through the Power of the Lord, which makes them far more accurate than any other.

Of course, as you point out, why then does it seem so clearly based upon the KJV and why is it that there are places it copies the KJV even down to the writing where scholars feel that the translation is incorrect?

I would say it is the same as many other translators.  You pointed out early in the thread regarding Genesis 1:1 which in many ways could be seen as an inaccurate translation.  Much of what is translated into English is more a tradition regarding translation of the first portion of Genesis.  A LOT of this is due to tradition, but that tradition is also because it is what we are familiar with.  We start translating the Bible and we use the words in the way that we are familiar with, thus rather than take a purely academic approach to something (such as At the Beginning, or even more liberally, at the Start, during the Start, At First, etc) we normally say the words...In the Beginning.  It is what we are familiar with.

 

This is called anaphoric translation, and positing anaphoric translation is suggesting Joseph Smith's own cognition influenced the translation. I think the evidence makes that conclusion inescapable, but an awful lot of people feel threatened by it.

Quote

 

In that same vein, many theorize that Joseph read a great deal in the Bible and was familiar with much of how it was worded and phrased.  Thus, this is reflected in his own translation of things.  His familiarity with the way it is phrased and worded work their way directly into his own translation, much as it influences other translators.

Once again, this brings on the next problem...if his knowledge is based upon the KJV and he takes liberally of it in his own translation, how then can we know if the Book of Mormon is the most accurate?

 

Most accurate what? Translation of Isaiah? 

Quote

However, “the most correct book” implies that it may not be absolutely correct, and in light of the Lord’s declaration, this may seem contradictory. But herein lies another significant principle: if there be any errors, they should not be attributed to the translation.

Why not? People acting under inspiration are inerrant?

Quote

Joseph Smith taught that the Savior would adapt his language to the capacity of a little child (see History of the Church, 3:383), and undoubtedly he had to adapt the language of the Book of Mormon to our linguistic capacity.

So it's accommodationism. 

Quote

Thus, yes, there may be inaccuracies, but the gospel teachings are in the most correct form available from it. I'd also extend this idea to that of the Doctrine and Covenants (as it is the closes we can come to direct revelations to a prophet of the Lord without being dependent in the intermediaries of time and other layers of translators and translation) and the Pearl of Great Price.  However, this obviously would not convince a scholar of another faith or another belief.

So what do we do with the fact that the Book of Moses has hundreds of differences from the JST manuscripts, and primarily differences input by people other than Joseph Smith, and without his supervision?

Quote

 

Which is why in the end it IS a matter of opinion, similar to how we favor our own versions of a translation.  However, in this, our opinion need not merely be based upon our own feelings, but upon an actual testimony revealed to us by the Power of the Holy Ghost.  Thus, it is on faith and by faith that we feel that we can rely upon the teachings of the Gospel found in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that we use.  It is not really something that can be factually objectified (though I think we try) but in the end, if we really boil it down, it is a matter of opinion based upon faith for the members, or for those opposed, based upon opinion from what they know and understand already. 

So, weak as it may be, my argument is that it is based on Faith for the most part, or in whole, rather than a more substantive argument from a scholarly approach.

 

So the faith part of it seems to be the conviction that the teachings are reliable, which I'm not challenging. Everything else seems to be rationalization, which isn't "scholarly" per se, but definitely an intellectual exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, maklelan said:

 

This is called anaphoric translation, and positing anaphoric translation is suggesting Joseph Smith's own cognition influenced the translation. I think the evidence makes that conclusion inescapable, but an awful lot of people feel threatened by it.

1. Most accurate what? Translation of Isaiah? 

2. Why not? People acting under inspiration are inerrant?

3. So it's accommodationism. 

4. So what do we do with the fact that the Book of Moses has hundreds of differences from the JST manuscripts, and primarily differences input by people other than Joseph Smith, and without his supervision?

5. So the faith part of it seems to be the conviction that the teachings are reliable, which I'm not challenging. Everything else seems to be rationalization, which isn't "scholarly" per se, but definitely an intellectual exercise.

1. I would say (as a member of the Church) that it is the most accurate at the presentation of the gospel ideas and the presentation of what it meant originally, which MAY not always enjoin to our modern or current interpretations of Isaiah with recent scholarship. 

2. People acting under inspiration can and do make mistakes.  It boils down to how you feel the Book of Mormon was translated.  Was it merely by inspiration?  Or was there something more to it?  Even those who ascribe to the stone in the Hat idea will need to say that there were tools at work there which were utilized by Joseph and that these tools apparently had some impact upon Joseph's translation.  Is this merely inspiration or something more?

My opinion is that it was far more than inspiration, which is why I include the idea of revelation being involved as well.  People might still be able to make mistakes in explaining a revelation, but it is a different process and thing.

How this occurred probably affects how one thinks of in regards to the actual Translation of the Book of Mormon.

3.  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.  Normally that has to do with Government and religion, but not quite understanding what you mean in the statement.

Edit - I am not a religious professor and so my first look at the question was from a viewpoint other than that of religious.  I looked it up as I was still puzzled and found out that it has a religious definition.  A basic explanation was found via the internet on wikipedia (of all places).  IF I understand that correctly, than yes, it would fall under accommodationism.

4. Hundreds?  We know that there are differences between the manuscripts and the version of the Pearl of Great Price we have now.  MANY of these was because Joseph Smith kept on revising it from the time he started and throughout his life.  We do not have (as far as I know) the later revisions which were handled by the RLDS (At the time, now CoC, but as it is the RLDS at the time, I'll refer t them in that manner) church.  The conjecture is that our current PoGP is greatly reliant upon their version that they published.  Faulconer is theorized to have used OT1 while Joseph III edited it.  Later, it gets more than that in that Pratt, as we suppose took much from the RLDS translation but made multiple grammatical changes.  I suppose this is where you come to the idea that there are hundreds of changes?

While true, in that same light, the Book of Mormon itself has had hundreds of changes as well...which I would have thought would be the thrust of your ideas regarding this if we are talking the veracity of translation.

Once again, I suppose it depends on what you think of the changes and translations.  I am taking for granted that we accept that those involved with the translations were doing their best to copy the material the most accurately that they could that was true to the text with the best of their knowledge...because if we do not then we might as well say all the texts from them were deliberately changed and are thus not worthwhile in the first place (and seeing we are discussing this, I'd say the default is that we DO hold that they were trying their best to remain accurate to what Joseph Smith translated).

Obviously, we have Joseph's translation efforts, but also the examples I gave above of the various ways the first phrase of the Aeneid has been or can be translated still remains in effect. Many of the changes were in an attempt to carry the message and the intent of the message while making it readable.  Grammar was changed to make it more readable, whilst other decisions were made to try to carry the messages and ideals of the translator (Joseph Smith) forward in the form that most accurately portrayed it.  We see this in Biblical translations as well, especially those that try to modernize the wording for current readers today.

I would say in particular, as you are probably talking about the Book of Moses, that what we have in it's form, as for mass publication, is closer to the ideas presented by Joseph Smith (and thus the original intent and the information given by the Lord regarding these doctrines or information) than any other version of the Book of Genesis or Moses out there today that is also available for mass publication. 

5. Scholarly and Intellectual exercise in some ways are synonymous when we are discussing the translations.  From a worldly scholarly approach, none of the things Translated by Joseph Smith have any validity, and with the evidence we have are more an exercise in futility to try to prove it to others outside the conglomeration of Mormonism and the various Churches that adhere to it's religious teachings.  In fact, to take it in a scholarly approach, faith is fundamental in accepting certain premises. 

So, yes, I'd say it is a combination of scholarly and intellectual exercise, because to even be able to begin to accept how it was translated in certain ways takes a great deal of rationalization before we can even touch upon the more scholarly approaches to how and why.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

A question for @Carborendum and @maklelan

What are your impressions of Avraham Gileadi's treatmment of Isaiah in his book "The Literary Message of Isaiah"?

 

The Traveler

I think it's a creative reading, particularly in the way he divides the text, but I don't think it has much to do with what was intended by the authors or editors, or what was understood by the first several generations of the text's readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maklelan said:

I think it's a creative reading, particularly in the way he divides the text, but I don't think it has much to do with what was intended by the authors or editors, or what was understood by the first several generations of the text's readers.

Are you implying that the there was multiple authors of Isaiah and that the poetic formats were coincidental?  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Are you implying that the there was multiple authors of Isaiah and that the poetic formats were coincidental?  

 

The Traveler

I'm stating pretty explicitly that there were multiple authors of Isaiah. While there are some unified models of its composition that put it in the fourth or fifth century BCE, I think the evidence is far stronger that the text constitutes the weaving together of multiple different authorial and editorial seams extending from the eighth century BCE down to the fifth or fourth. There are some literary forms that are incidental, but the broader structure is clearly the intentional work of a redactor working in the post-exilic period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, maklelan said:

I'm stating pretty explicitly that there were multiple authors of Isaiah. While there are some unified models of its composition that put it in the fourth or fifth century BCE, I think the evidence is far stronger that the text constitutes the weaving together of multiple different authorial and editorial seams extending from the eighth century BCE down to the fifth or fourth. There are some literary forms that are incidental, but the broader structure is clearly the intentional work of a redactor working in the post-exilic period.

Does your opinion include the evidence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? - that references Isaiah from about 100 years before the Lehi migration took place. (that predates from 100 to 200 years prior to you reference to unified models?   So that the time between Isaiah and king Ahaz to  Lehi is half the time you are assuming it took to evolve the current Isaiah.  BTW all this is less than half the time between us and the creation of most revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.  

It is also interesting to me that it would evolve for 300 years and then suddenly stop between then and the copy of Isaiah we have from the Dead Sea Scriptures????  Why is it not possible that the literary forms come from the license of Scribes transcribing the work rather than individual authors?  I realize that we do not have any autograms beyond perhaps what was part of the Brass Plates.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

Does your opinion include the evidence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? - that references Isaiah from about 100 years before the Lehi migration took place. (that predates from 100 to 200 years prior to you reference to unified models?   So that the time between Isaiah and king Ahaz to  Lehi is half the time you are assuming it took to evolve the current Isaiah.  BTW all this is less than half the time between us and the creation of most revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.  

It is also interesting to me that it would evolve for 300 years and then suddenly stop between then and the copy of Isaiah we have from the Dead Sea Scriptures????  Why is it not possible that the literary forms come from the license of Scribes transcribing the work rather than individual authors?  I realize that we do not have any autograms beyond perhaps what was part of the Brass Plates.

 

The Traveler

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is not evidence that Isaiah was composed prior to 600 BC. Numerous New Testament quotations pulled directly from the KJV, errors and all, are also included in the Book of Mormon, but that's not evidence the KJV's translation of the New Testament was composed prior to 600 BC. It's just evidence that people don't understand how the Book of Mormon was translated and don't want to if it complicates their assumptions about revelation and prophetic authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, maklelan said:

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is not evidence that Isaiah was composed prior to 600 BC. Numerous New Testament quotations pulled directly from the KJV, errors and all, are also included in the Book of Mormon, but that's not evidence the KJV's translation of the New Testament was composed prior to 600 BC. It's just evidence that people don't understand how the Book of Mormon was translated and don't want to if it complicates their assumptions about revelation and prophetic authority.

I understand the difference between evidence and proof.  It appears to me that what evidence you have is believed by you as proof that Isaiah the prophet was not the author of the Book of Isaiah.  According to Gileadi and other scholars the entire Book of Isaiah is a very complex and complicated work of Hebrew poetry constructed around what is called "The Bifid Structure" - which interestingly is maintained with the imbedded Isaiah text of the Book of Mormon.  So I understand clearly - your claim is that this complex and complicated structure is a fabrication and not real?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2020 at 6:01 PM, Traveler said:

Are you implying that the there was multiple authors of Isaiah and that the poetic formats were coincidental?  

 

The Traveler

This is a common item of belief for many who study Biblical texts and such.  The understanding some of them have has created a juxtaposition regarding Isaiah's translations popping up in the Book of Mormon in comparison to the times that many feel it was made vs. the period of time that the Book of Mormon is claimed (by some BoM scholars) to have occurred.

 

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I understand the difference between evidence and proof.  It appears to me that what evidence you have is believed by you as proof that Isaiah the prophet was not the author of the Book of Isaiah.  According to Gileadi and other scholars the entire Book of Isaiah is a very complex and complicated work of Hebrew poetry constructed around what is called "The Bifid Structure" - which interestingly is maintained with the imbedded Isaiah text of the Book of Mormon.  So I understand clearly - your claim is that this complex and complicated structure is a fabrication and not real?

 

The Traveler

This is something that would be interesting to elaborate upon, as some (meaning not all ascribe to some of these ideas) of the scholars of Mormonism (though most of them are NOT members of the Church, so that could also be something that is different in approach and understanding of these theories) that I have met that have brought up the Isaiah issue (and the Isaiah issue is NOT actually an LDS thing, but something that is seen regarding Biblical historicity and the actual evolution of Isaiah, though there are several various theories pertaining to it) have utilized it in arguing why the Book of Mormon could not actually accurate  (which is something I obviously disagree with, which means I tend to favor some theories regarding Isaiah over others).

I'm not sure what the claim is, but expanding the explanation of the position could be good in understanding which theory is being utilized regarding the Isaiah translation and how that reflects on the Book of Mormon itself in his view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Traveler said:

I understand the difference between evidence and proof.  It appears to me that what evidence you have is believed by you as proof that Isaiah the prophet was not the author of the Book of Isaiah.  According to Gileadi and other scholars the entire Book of Isaiah is a very complex and complicated work of Hebrew poetry constructed around what is called "The Bifid Structure" - which interestingly is maintained with the imbedded Isaiah text of the Book of Mormon.  So I understand clearly - your claim is that this complex and complicated structure is a fabrication and not real?

 

The Traveler

First, I've not made any references to proof. Nothing remotely reaches the level of "proof" with this kind of historical/literary question. We're dealing with probabilities, and by far the highest probability is that the prophet Isaiah was only responsible for a small portion of the text that was then elaborated on and restructured over the centuries by later authors and editors.

Second, no, I'm not saying the structure is "not real." It might be real, but because the most likely process of composition included some final editorial phase where the text as a whole was put into its final shape, that "complex and complicated structure" could just as likely be the work of that final editor. At the same time, it might not be real. A lot of literary criticism, and particularly of the Bible, is a practice of imposing structure where no structure was intended. I'm not saying one or the other conclusion is definitively true, I'm saying that the theory doesn't strike me as identifying the intended message of the text, and doesn't really bear at all on the question of date of authorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

First, I've not made any references to proof. Nothing remotely reaches the level of "proof" with this kind of historical/literary question. We're dealing with probabilities, and by far the highest probability is that the prophet Isaiah was only responsible for a small portion of the text that was then elaborated on and restructured over the centuries by later authors and editors.

Second, no, I'm not saying the structure is "not real." It might be real, but because the most likely process of composition included some final editorial phase where the text as a whole was put into its final shape, that "complex and complicated structure" could just as likely be the work of that final editor. At the same time, it might not be real. A lot of literary criticism, and particularly of the Bible, is a practice of imposing structure where no structure was intended. I'm not saying one or the other conclusion is definitively true, I'm saying that the theory doesn't strike me as identifying the intended message of the text, and doesn't really bear at all on the question of date of authorship.

It is my understanding that the single greatest impact on modern Biblical textual criticism was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures and Scrolls.  This would play directly into the textual criticism of Isaiah for several reasons.  Perhaps most important is that all the other Old Testament scriptures were maintained not as single text of each book but rather multiple versions of texts.  As I understand they are basically divided into a large and small (abridge) version of texts - one being more verbose than the other.

This introduces another problem into understanding what you call "the intended message of the text".  That the intended message is not singular but rather as put forth by Isaiah - a plural message of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept here a little and there a little.

But it also seems to me that the perspective of a Latter-day Saint is somewhat superior to others despite that there are scholars with generations of secular insight.  For example we know that a prophet such as Mormon and Moroni can abridge the revelations of previous prophets.  And that such abridgements can modify the underlying message that in essence can either add to or remove spiritual insights concerning a particular scripture, in part dependent on the loyalties to covenants of a specific "generation". 

Thus it is my understanding that a Latter-day Saint is charged to study (from the "best" resources) all that is possible - come to a conclusion and then seek conformation through the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost.  And even then the confirmation is not singular or a end to seeking an "intended meaning" but as prophesied by Isaiah - the new line and new principle.  Not even then not as an end to be argued but rather a cherished insight to be added upon at some future time.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that the single greatest impact on modern Biblical textual criticism was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures and Scrolls.  This would play directly into the textual criticism of Isaiah for several reasons.  Perhaps most important is that all the other Old Testament scriptures were maintained not as single text of each book but rather multiple versions of texts.  As I understand they are basically divided into a large and small (abridge) version of texts - one being more verbose than the other.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are absolutely not divided into full and abridged versions of texts. Some books are attested in only one or a few manuscript fragments, while others have dozens and dozens of manuscripts, and the forms of the texts are largely consistent apart from tiny differences that affect almost every verse, but not in significant ways. There are some manuscripts with significant differences, and a couple of them are the "shorter" versions of books, but these are well-known variants that are related to the source text for the Septuagint. They're not "abridged," they're actually earlier forms of the text that don't have all the expansions that the later form which ended up in the Masoretic Texts do. Close examination has revealed some manuscripts have concentrations of readings that are diagnostic of the Septuagint, or of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Masoretic Text, or some unknown manuscript family. Beyond that, there's no pattern in what form the manuscripts have.

Quote

This introduces another problem into understanding what you call "the intended message of the text".  That the intended message is not singular but rather as put forth by Isaiah - a plural message of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept here a little and there a little.

Yes, there are many different potential meanings, but the fact that many meanings can be found in the text is not evidence that any given meaning was intended. We need evidence to support a given reading, otherwise it's just an exercise in creative writing. (Ironically, "line upon line and precept upon precept" is a mistranslation of gibberish Hebrew [tsav letsav tsav letsav qav leqav qav leqav] that is supposed to represent "another tongue" in which the Lord would speak that others wouldn't understand.)

Quote

 

But it also seems to me that the perspective of a Latter-day Saint is somewhat superior to others despite that there are scholars with generations of secular insight.  For example we know that a prophet such as Mormon and Moroni can abridge the revelations of previous prophets.  And that such abridgements can modify the underlying message that in essence can either add to or remove spiritual insights concerning a particular scripture, in part dependent on the loyalties to covenants of a specific "generation". 

Thus it is my understanding that a Latter-day Saint is charged to study (from the "best" resources) all that is possible - come to a conclusion and then seek conformation through the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost.  And even then the confirmation is not singular or a end to seeking an "intended meaning" but as prophesied by Isaiah - the new line and new principle.  Not even then not as an end to be argued but rather a cherished insight to be added upon at some future time.

 

Yes, Latter-day Saints should absolutely study whatever they can to equip themselves with all the interpretive lenses they could ever use to inform their experiences and their engagement with scripture and with the Spirit, but this doesn't mean we have magical access to original intended meaning that others do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2020 at 1:08 PM, maklelan said:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are absolutely not divided into full and abridged versions of texts. Some books are attested in only one or a few manuscript fragments, while others have dozens and dozens of manuscripts, and the forms of the texts are largely consistent apart from tiny differences that affect almost every verse, but not in significant ways. There are some manuscripts with significant differences, and a couple of them are the "shorter" versions of books, but these are well-known variants that are related to the source text for the Septuagint. They're not "abridged," they're actually earlier forms of the text that don't have all the expansions that the later form which ended up in the Masoretic Texts do. Close examination has revealed some manuscripts have concentrations of readings that are diagnostic of the Septuagint, or of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Masoretic Text, or some unknown manuscript family. Beyond that, there's no pattern in what form the manuscripts have.

Yes, there are many different potential meanings, but the fact that many meanings can be found in the text is not evidence that any given meaning was intended. We need evidence to support a given reading, otherwise it's just an exercise in creative writing. (Ironically, "line upon line and precept upon precept" is a mistranslation of gibberish Hebrew [tsav letsav tsav letsav qav leqav qav leqav] that is supposed to represent "another tongue" in which the Lord would speak that others wouldn't understand.)

Yes, Latter-day Saints should absolutely study whatever they can to equip themselves with all the interpretive lenses they could ever use to inform their experiences and their engagement with scripture and with the Spirit, but this doesn't mean we have magical access to original intended meaning that others do not. 

I have been going through my library.  I am not an expert concerning ancient text and must rely on the work of others.  My particular field of expertise is science - in the field of automation and robotics (and some classified military weapon systems).  My degree was in Math and physics.  I pursue ancient literature as a hobby - mostly through scholarly publications.  I have not located the reference where the Dead Sea Scriptures (a subset of the Dead Sea Scrolls) are classified by detail.  However, the point that there are many versions of ancient Biblical text does indicate that even in a highly structured society that existed by the Dead Sea - they did not pursue a singular intent or meaning from scripture.  Else the variants from the pure would have been purged rather than preserved with such great sacrifice as required at the time. 

The very idea that there is only one unique understanding that should be applied to scripture is somewhat of a paradox to an extensive modern study of scripture.  This is because if one has discovered the "Intended" meaning of a particular passage - there would be no reason to study or explorer that passages or others of similar reference; any further. 

But I am a little troubled with your closing statement.  If the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not enhance one's understanding of scripture - giving Latter-day Saints, in essence, an advantage that those without that gift cannot experience - why be involved in such a covenant?  I can attest that in my profession; that my greatest achievements (including two patents) have come through loyalty to covenants as an exercise of the power of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.   I believe President Nelson and attested to the same as a heart surgeon advancing methods of open heart surgery.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Traveler said:

they did not pursue a singular intent or meaning from scripture.  Else the variants from the pure would have been purged rather than preserved with such great sacrifice as required at the time. 

That doesn't really follow, as the form of the text itself had become more or less inviolable by the time the Dead Sea Scrolls transcriptions were underway. That was more important than promoting a specific hermeneutic. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls were copied over a period of around 300 years (longer than the United States has existed), so numerous different generations with numerous different viewpoints are represented by that collection.  

Quote

The very idea that there is only one unique understanding that should be applied to scripture is somewhat of a paradox to an extensive modern study of scripture.  This is because if one has discovered the "Intended" meaning of a particular passage - there would be no reason to study or explorer that passages or others of similar reference; any further. 

Nobody is suggesting there is only one unique understanding. What's being suggested is that the fact of numerous different understandings does not in any way, shape, or form constitute evidence that a given reading was intended by a text's authors.

Quote

But I am a little troubled with your closing statement.  If the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not enhance one's understanding of scripture - giving Latter-day Saints, in essence, an advantage that those without that gift cannot experience - why be involved in such a covenant? 

The advantage is to guidance regarding one's own needs and circumstances, not special access to historical-critical insight or hermeneutic capacities. 

Quote

I can attest that in my profession; that my greatest achievements (including two patents) have come through loyalty to covenants as an exercise of the power of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.   I believe President Nelson and attested to the same as a heart surgeon advancing methods of open heart surgery. 

I've seen people claim the same thing about decisions that ended up ruining families, lives, and careers. It's quite easy to overestimate the accuracy of our Spirit-O-Meters, especially when our guidance becomes a rhetorical shoehorn we're using in a debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

 

I've seen people claim the same thing about decisions that ended up ruining families, lives, and careers. It's quite easy to overestimate the accuracy of our Spirit-O-Meters, especially when our guidance becomes a rhetorical shoehorn we're using in a debate. 

I was in the military during the Vietnam era - I have seen entire nations turn against each other as well as themselves claiming the spiritual high ground from their interpretation of ancient texts.  Currently we are seeing entire political parties turning against each other and claiming that sacred scripture justifies their actions.  For thousands of years - there have been wars and massacres justified by expert interpretation of scriptures.  And those with variant opinions (opposing the experts) of scripture interpretation; denounced as heretics, brutally punished by those "more" expert in scripture.  We would not have an Old Testament today if it had not been for the Pharisees - and yet they and their expert interpretation of scripture was the motivation behind the movement to crucify Christ.   

The interpretation of scripture cannot and will not save anyone from their sins.  And no one will be saved without the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

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