Bazooka wrote: I know where it comes from, I'm asking what it means. Because it suggests that when the D&C was first published, its contents didn't accurately match history.
I would like to point out that the message from a Spiritual source may indeed have many earthly errors. I think that if you concentrate on the message then God will speak to you through the words. But if you act like Peter standing on the water and notice the world around you you will start to sink. We all can stumble on scripture. I think it is made that way on purpose.
So the beam of the Godly message is ignored in order to argue over a mote of the earth. I think that the requirement that scripture be perfect is a creation of man. I have fallen into that trap before. But if we let the Holy Spirit be our guide we will see what we need to see and the rest does not matter.
I think you raise a good point that we are hashing around on the borrowing from the Book of Mormon thread. The issue is why God would choose to translate the Book of Mormon into the KJV style, incorporating parallel language and sentence structure, when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:I think you raise a good point that we are hashing around on the borrowing from the Book of Mormon thread. The issue is why God would choose to translate the Book of Mormon into the KJV style, incorporating parallel language and sentence structure, when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
I think that is debatable in many respects. The advantages of the KJV is that it uses a more precise form of English, even though it is archaic, and is a pretty good word-for-word translation. I'd hardly say that modern English Bibles are nearly as precise due to the ambiguities inherent in modern forms and question whether or not meaning-for-meaning translations are really better?!? Given that, I'd like you to identify a more accurate word-for-word translation of the Bible than the KJV. As far as I'm aware, there is none.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Brad Hudson wrote:I think you raise a good point that we are hashing around on the borrowing from the Book of Mormon thread. The issue is why God would choose to translate the Book of Mormon into the KJV style, incorporating parallel language and sentence structure, when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
I think that is debatable in many respects. The advantages of the KJV is that it uses a more precise form of English, even though it is archaic, and is a pretty good word-for-word translation. I'd hardly say that modern English Bibles are nearly as precise due to the ambiguities inherent in modern forms and question whether or not meaning-for-meaning translations are really better?!? Given that, I'd like you to identify a more accurate word-for-word translation of the Bible than the KJV. As far as I'm aware, there is none.
According to Joseph Smith the German version was more accurate than ol' King James.
How is KJV a "more precise" English???
(Oh, I know I'm on Tobin's ignore list so this will all go unanswered. *sigh*)
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Tobin, you're assuming that a literal word for word translation is the most accurate. Do you speak any languages other than English? I also don't understand what you mean by "precise." I don't find KJV English "precise" at all.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:I think you raise a good point that we are hashing around on the borrowing from the Book of Mormon thread. The issue is why God would choose to translate the Book of Mormon into the KJV style, incorporating parallel language and sentence structure, when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
If we only look to the message then the style of the words mean little. I have read many translations of the Bible but I really enjoy the KJV. But I check for errors and rest upon the Spirit to guide me. I think if you focus on the message and not the vehicle of the message you will receive much more.
Brad Hudson wrote:....(snip)....when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
as i understand the history, Accuracy was not necessarily the goal of the KJV as much as it was Correctness. Besides, i think the unique style of the KJV is somewhat revealing of its purpose and its success.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Brad Hudson wrote:....(snip)....when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
as i understand the history, Accuracy was not necessarily the goal of the KJV as much as it was Correctness. Besides, i think the unique style of the KJV is somewhat revealing of its purpose and its success.
When you say "accuracy", do you really mean word for word translation?
Brad Hudson wrote:....(snip)....when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
as i understand the history, Accuracy was not necessarily the goal of the KJV as much as it was Correctness. Besides, i think the unique style of the KJV is somewhat revealing of its purpose and its success.
You may be right, although if the translators strayed from the text to achieve "correctness" I can see that as a negative. The style of the KJV is more poetic sounding to me, so I like it better. But if the question is accuracy of the translation, I don't rely on it.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Franktalk wrote:I would like to point out that the message from a Spiritual source may indeed have many earthly errors. I think that if you concentrate on the message then God will speak to you through the words. But if you act like Peter standing on the water and notice the world around you you will start to sink. We all can stumble on scripture. I think it is made that way on purpose.
So the beam of the Godly message is ignored in order to argue over a mote of the earth. I think that the requirement that scripture be perfect is a creation of man. I have fallen into that trap before. But if we let the Holy Spirit be our guide we will see what we need to see and the rest does not matter.
I think you raise a good point that we are hashing around on the borrowing from the Book of Mormon thread. The issue is why God would choose to translate the Book of Mormon into the KJV style, incorporating parallel language and sentence structure, when the KJV is not one of the most accurate translations. I find it difficult to figure out what would be reasonable for a god.
He may raise a good point, but it's not relevant to this thread. The question here is why the Church has used the sentence...
These changes have been made so as to bring the material into conformity with the historical documents.
...to describe changes that take the material (Doctrine & Covenants) further from conformity with the historical documents.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Bazooka wrote:...to describe changes that take the material (Doctrine & Covenants) further from conformity with the historical documents.
You will have to describe what you are talking about. Are you saying they are removing historical links and just leaving the message or are you saying they are changing the links to not match historical documents? Big difference between the two.
