this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

He hasn't even defined "academic means."

Nor will he. Tex has painted himself into a logical corner with his "it is not our right to determine truth" stance.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nor will he. Tex has painted himself into a logical corner with his "it is not our right to determine truth" stance.

It is an interesting corner to be certain.

I'm not allowed to determine the parameters of truth, not allowed to ponder its inception, only allowed to confirm that it's absolute truth.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

so appealing to "scholars" who try to find out the exact nature of the JST isn't "academic means"?

I was comparing Joseph Smith's method of Biblical "translation" to modern-day Biblical scholarship.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nor will he. Tex has painted himself into a logical corner with his "it is not our right to determine truth" stance.

It's not your right to ratify the truth of church doctrine, no. Amusing that you've chosen to tear that from a completely different discussion and apply it to academic pursuits.

And folks accuse me of being disingenuous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not your right to ratify the truth of church doctrine, no. Amusing that you've chosen to tear that from a completely different discussion and apply it to academic pursuits.

And folks accuse me of being disingenuous.

It's not only my right, it is my obligation.

And your splitting of intellectual/academic vs. spiritual questions is often a false dichotomy. As if one should completely disengage one's brain when dealing with certain religious matters.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not your right to ratify the truth of church doctrine, no.

Wow.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's not only my right, it is my obligation.

It's your obligation and privilege to receive confirmation, not ratification.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And your splitting of intellectual/academic vs. spiritual questions is often a false dichotomy. As if one should completely disengage one's brain when dealing with certain religious matters.

No, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But researches doing textual criticism of the Bible or other ancient texts don't typically cite revelation in their resource material.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's your obligation and privilege to receive confirmation, not ratification.

SU was right. You are a cyborg. But you won't grind me to dust.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

SU was right. You are a cyborg. But you won't grind me to dust.

His perspective is one of the strangest ever.

We only may seek confirmation, not test its validity. He is the borg.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was comparing Joseph Smith's method of Biblical "translation" to modern-day Biblical scholarship.

...and appealing to scholars who use the same method applied to modern-day Biblical scholar to determine what method Joseph Smith used for the JST.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

...and appealing to scholars who use the same method applied to modern-day Biblical scholar to determine what method Joseph Smith used for the JST.

You're trying to find a quarrel where none exists. Whether Biblical textual criticism or JST textual criticism, all we're talking about here is educated guessing. Probabilities. Likelihoods.

There is no way to know for sure what came out of Jesus' mouth, unless it is from "supernatural" means. I'm surprised you disagree with this.