Since ancient scribes were so totally accurate ... mistakes ...? (Ecumenical)

jefflindsay.com ^ | 1994

[wendy1946]

One way for mistakes to enter the Bible is for people to ruin the old stories by trying to yuppify the language. The worst example is Isaiah 30:26 which refers to the seven days of intense light and radiation prior to the flood, i.e. the seven days referred to twice in Genesis 7:4 and 7:10. The NIB inserts the word "full" as if to re-enforce the idea that the passage means something like "as bright, as if you were to cram the light of seven days into one day", which is clearly a misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

The scholars who put the KJ together had the decency, in cases in which they did not understand something, to leave the language the way they found it so as to retain the possibility that somebody 300 years later might could figure it out. This is why I have no use for yuppie Bibles and prefer the KJ.

[svcw]

Since credentials are so important to you today, I was wondering if you would post the credentials of Joe Smith (flim flam man doesn't count).

[svcw]

Brilliant

[metmom]

***crickets***

[svcw]

Source lds don’t need n stink’n source. Just need a top hat and a purty stone.

[metmom]

GMTA....

[svcw]

Sorry no need to answer. I should have looked at the link first - how deceptive of you rusty. No wonder this is not an open thread.

[Cronos]

Sorry, I wasn’t even commenting on the article, just on that particular post. The LDS’ raison d’etre is not that some words were incorrect — is it? Because the LDS has new books like the Book of Mormon added to the Bible.

[Utah Binger]

I would suggest that Deists simply ignore a thread that does not allow for their beliefs to be defended.

Switchbacks Viewed from Zion's Great Arch: Homer Jones Collection

[Religion Moderator]

The article says what it says. Your corrections/edits also stand on their own merit as replies.

[Religion Moderator]

This Religion Forum thread is labeled "ecumenical" meaning that NO ANTAGONISM is allowed on this thread.

The article is antagonistic, but more leeway is granted to the article than to the reply posts. For instance, a passage from the Bible which is unkind towards Jewish beliefs may be the basis of an "ecumenical" discussion - but the replies must not be antagonistic.

If you wish to have a "town square" format debate on the issues raised by the article, then find a similar article and post it that way.

If you wish to complain about the RF guidelines, i.e. that an antagonistic article can be posted as "ecumenical" to avoid criticism, then create an "open" RF thread for that purpose.

If you wish to direct those on your side of the debate away from a thread like this, then come up with a non-antagonistic redirect and ping your FRiends, e.g. "I wholly disagree with the article and cannot reply without it being taken as antagonistic, therefore let's reconvene on an open thread and show the other side of the story."

[Religion Moderator]

See #73 in reply to your remark on the other thread.

[Godzilla]

Thank you for the clarification

[Vendome]

Uhm, okay?

[svcw]

I wholly disagree with the article and cannot reply without it being taken as antagonistic, therefore let's reconvene on an open thread and show the other side of the story."

LOL

[Tennessee Nana]

I wholly disagree with the article and cannot reply without it being taken as antagonistic, therefore let’s reconvene on an open thread and show the other side of the story.”

[svcw]

No, I wholly disagree with the article and cannot reply without it being taken as antagonistic, therefore let’s reconvene on an open thread and show the other side of the story.”

[Godzilla]

the article refers to one source’s opinions regarding the DSS and the records of the Hebrew OT writings. Yet what is is not posted is that the scroll of Isaiah is virtually identical to the previous oldest copy that was 1000 years younger.

The article on the face suggests that scholars are unable to reconcile these older versions with more recent ms. That has since 1999 been found to be untrue, now that broader dissemation and access to the scrolls has been made available.