Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[Sleeping in EQ]

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]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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]

Originally Posted by Tex

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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:

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]

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]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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]

Originally Posted by Tex

I also said this in that same thread:

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".

Originally Posted by Tex

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

Oh, stop with the school-girl drama.