Secular Biblical Scholarship and Mormonism

[_Ray A]

A critical look isn't the same as "whining".

I agree, but I am not referencing a critical look, I'm referencing a cynical look. The perspective I'm talking about manifests a marked lack of critical thinking.

I've explained quite clearly where I was going with this thread and what I wanted to avoid, and you've clearly disregarded that so you can steer the discussion to a more comfortable context. I was fine with that for a time, but don't pretend you're trying hard to stay on topic. You've failed to address my responses to your questions and have only occasionally referenced them in passing in your effort to appear on topic. You've also displayed a marked lack of critical thinking in the discussion you brought up, and it's clear you've not spent a great deal of time formulating your arguments. I'm going to post another topic for discussion, and I'm going to ask that my request to remain on topic be honored.

Good luck with that.

[_aussieguy55]

I have a question. Does "Secular Biblical Scholarship" supports Smith's revisions in the Bible. Does the Great Isaiah Scroll Ch 29 have the same number of verses as does the same chapter in the IV, ch 29?. Do LDS accept the dating of the two Isaiah's ? Secular Biblical Scholarship seems to argue that certain epistles were not written by Paul as traditionally believed. This narrative seems to be current among LDS that scholarship is supporting LDS doctrine and the Evangelicals are getting left behind.

[_maklelan]

I have a question. Does "Secular Biblical Scholarship" supports Smith's revisions in the Bible.

I have another question. Did you read my post?

Does the Great Isaiah Scroll Ch 29 have the same number of verses as does the same chapter in the IV, ch 29?

The Great Isaiah Scroll doesn't have chapters or verses.

Do LDS accept the dating of the two Isaiah's ?

There are three Isaiahs, and most of the Latter-day Saints who are familiar with the scholarship don't have problems with the idea of redaction.

Secular Biblical Scholarship seems to argue that certain epistles were not written by Paul as traditionally believed.

And the Latter-day Saint tradition doesn't conflict with that.

This narrative seems to be current among LDS that scholarship is supporting LDS doctrine and the Evangelicals are getting left behind.

Not entirely, and if you'd actually read my post you would have run across a part where I said the following:

This is not to suggest that I at all imagine the secular or minimalist perspective is unilaterally compatible with Mormonism, or that there are no conflicts,

I'm at a loss why you would read that and then think you were doing something novel or relevant by telling me what I already know. Also, you don't really understand the issues you've presented well enough to actually engage a real debate. You're just appealing to elements of biblical scholarship of which you're hazily aware.

[_aussieguy55]

Is 29 in the Inspired Version has three extra verses which do not appear in normal Bibles. Scholars tell us the the DSS Is is basically the same as we have now. Is there any support for Smith's expansions or changes in the " Secular Biblical Scholarship" that support Smith's expansion? In photos of the IV that appear in be comments that Smith was correcting the text.

[_maklelan]

Is 29 in the Inspired Version has three extra verses which do not appear in normal Bibles. Scholars tell us the the DSS Is is basically the same as we have now. Is there any support for Smith's expansions or changes in the " Secular Biblical Scholarship" that support Smith's expansion? In photos of the IV that appear in be comments that Smith was correcting the text.

I don't appreciate the shotgun approach of just lobbing a bunch of assertions in my direction to see what sticks. Now you've just abandoned the rest of the arguments, totally ignored my comments, and reasserted the one position with which you feel at least nominally conversant. If you want to debate then discuss the points of my thread, but just vomiting up points of contention without engaging the discussion isn't something I respect or will take part in. Please don't post in my thread again unless you stick to the topic.

[_aussieguy55]

You come across and quite arrogant and also don't wish to engage with you. I did a couple of semesters of Hebrew with F I Andersen at the University of Queensland Studies in Religion Department years ago. However I found psychology a more interesting field and took the studies no further. I think the work of "Secular Biblical Scholarship" is important in evaluating Smith's revisions of the Bible. Did Smith think or pretend he was restoring the text rather than as some LDS argue making a comment This translation http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm does not seem to support Smith. Anyway have a great life in your delusion

[_maklelan]

You come across and quite arrogant and also don't wish to engage with you.

It's not my intention to acquiesce to those on this board who feel every thread is open for them to ignore the topic and introduce their pet gripes. If that offends your sensitivities then don't spend so much time condemning other people's worldviews in public.

I did a couple of semesters of Hebrew with F I Andersen at the University of Queensland Studies in Religion Department years ago. However I found psychology a more interesting field and took the studies no further. I think the work of "Secular Biblical Scholarship" is important in evaluating Smith's revisions of the Bible.

Then start a thread that deals with that. This thread is clearly focused on something else.

Did Smith think or pretend he was restoring the text rather than as some LDS argue making a comment This translation http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm does not seem to support Smith. Anyway have a great life in your delusion

I criticized your methodologies and firmly requested you stay on topic. You flippantly dismissed my worldview as a delusion. Clearly I'm not the one lacking tact and objectivity.

[_marg]

So as not to derail I deleted my post..

[_maklelan]

The impression I get mackelan from reading your responses to others who have attempted to engage you in discussion is that you didn't set this thread up for an intellectually honest discussion about whether or not secular biblical scholarship on the whole supports a Latter-day perspective,

Which is exactly what I explicitly stated in the opening post.

but rather you are interested in accumulating information apologetic in nature to Mormonism which allows for ONLY data which supports your theme "secular biblical scholarship "supportive of" a Latter-day perspective".

Not at all. I want to discuss the issues I bring up (as I made quite clear in the opening post), whether you agree or not. In fact, I'd more appreciate it if someone provided intellectual criticism of my perspective. That helps me learn more. I realize there are only going to be a few posters who can engage the material I bring up, but it's the feedback and the perspective of those posters that I wish to hear.

Am I correct in this assessment? That is am I correct that you are not interested in a discussion of an issue but are interested is supportive data to your "theme" instead?

You are incorrect. I've invited every poster to engage the topic I've introduced. None have done so. Rather they've tossed their little pet topics into my thread, which I explicitly stated in the OP I would not allow. I am interested in a discussion of the issues I've introduced, but no one has bothered to engage them. That's been made very clear more than once.

[_marg]

deleted ...as off topic