cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board
Page 1 of 12 1 2311 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Religious Studies (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Brigham Young on Bible Translation (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12102)

Sleeping in EQ 09-24-2007 08:34 PM
Brigham Young on Bible Translation
 
From the Journal of Discourses 14:226-227:

“If [the Bible] be translated incorrectly, and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so, or the curse is upon him. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do, and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the law of justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. Is that proper? Yes, I would be under obligation to do it.”

Jeff Lebowski 09-24-2007 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 127213)
From the Journal of Discourses 14:226-227:

“If [the Bible] be translated incorrectly, and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so, or the curse is upon him. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do, and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the law of justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. Is that proper? Yes, I would be under obligation to do it.”
Amen, Brother Brigham.

I am curious to see how Tex will spin this.

Indy Coug 09-24-2007 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 127213)
From the Journal of Discourses 14:226-227:

“If [the Bible] be translated incorrectly, and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so, or the curse is upon him. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do, and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the law of justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. Is that proper? Yes, I would be under obligation to do it.”
Which is why Joseph Smith started work on doing that very thing.

YOhio 09-24-2007 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 127213)
From the Journal of Discourses 14:226-227:

“If [the Bible] be translated incorrectly, and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so, or the curse is upon him. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do, and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the law of justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. Is that proper? Yes, I would be under obligation to do it.”
Ah hell. There goes my free time for the next couple of שנה.

Tex 09-24-2007 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 127216)
Amen, Brother Brigham.

I am curious to see how Tex will spin this.
Spin what? I have no problem with that statement.

Leb, someday you may rise to the level of actually understanding my point of view. Until then, you will continue to labor in embarrassing ignorance.

Ding!

Jeff Lebowski 09-24-2007 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 127223)
Spin what? I have no problem with that statement.

Leb, someday you may rise to the level of actually understanding my point of view. Until then, you will continue to labor in embarrassing ignorance.

Ding!
LOL. Well, there you go. Tex simply ignores all of his previous comments on the topic.

Come on, Tex. You argued for days that the only kind of translation we should bother with is JST-style "translation by revelation". And you repeatedly downplayed the significance and importance of any academic approach to translation. And mocked our affinity to the NRSV.

Here is just one of your many posts:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=18

Tex 09-24-2007 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 127231)
LOL. Well, there you go. Tex simply ignores all of his previous comments on the topic.

Come on, Tex. You argued for days that the only kind of translation we should bother with is JST-style "translation by revelation". And you repeatedly downplayed the significance and importance of any academic approach to translation. And mocked our affinity to the NRSV.

Here is just one of your many posts:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=18
I also said this in that same thread:

Quote:
Intepretation of scripture is done via revelation, not academic exploration. I don't think the church opposes the latter, though, as YOhio points out. Just refuses to standardize on it.
Neither am I opposed to attempts to improve upon the Bible through academic means. I support the church's caution in transitioning to another version, however. Most of my criticism in the other thread was not about opposing other versions but the severe beating the JST took.

Sorry that doesn't fit into your little Tex-hate world, Leb.

jay santos 09-24-2007 09:10 PM
Tex, wouldn't you go for a translation that was more academically/linguistically sound than KJV, and allow modern day prophets to continue to handle the interpretation, as has been the model the last 200 years of the church?

Tex 09-24-2007 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 127248)
Tex, wouldn't you go for a translation that was more academically/linguistically sound than KJV, and allow modern day prophets to continue to handle the interpretation, as has been the model the last 200 years of the church?
As I said in the other thread, as a matter of standardization and/or canonization I think the church is appropriately cautious. It has compelling reasons to stay with the KJV. Maybe someday they will decide to go another direction, and if/when they do I will get in line.

In the meantine that doesn't mean there isn't value in the newer translations, nor that they cannot be studied and extrapolated from. We know Joseph didn't limit himself to only the KJV, and we have a revelation from God telling him (and the church) that while not necessary for the JST, the apocryphal books contain many things that are true.

Jeff Lebowski 09-24-2007 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 127238)
I also said this in that same thread:

Quote:
Intepretation of scripture is done via revelation, not academic exploration. I don't think the church opposes the latter, though, as YOhio points out. Just refuses to standardize on it.
Neither am I opposed to attempts to improve upon the Bible through academic means. I support the church's caution in transitioning to another version, however. Most of my criticism in the other thread was not about opposing other versions but the severe beating the JST took.
Spin-spin-spin. Nicely done.

Given that you claim to agree with BY's statement above, why on earth would you or the church be so cautious about adopting improved translations? Since BY's time we have adopted ZERO improved translations. That's well beyond being "cautious".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 127238)
Sorry that doesn't fit into your little Tex-hate world, Leb.
Oh, stop with the school-girl drama.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21 PM.
Page 1 of 12 1 2311 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.