1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the bible (Old Testament) a collection of someones fables?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by GodLovesUs, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    I thought it was against the RF rules to denigrate another's religion :tsk: , or maybe I'm ignorant in that respect too. :biglaugh: Oh well, I can turn the other cheek. I'm looking forward to another arrogant, degrading post, o great hebrew knower. Ahhh...this is off subject and I do apologize for that.

    By the way I'm still looking for the DSS stuff, you haven't won yet. :woohoo:
     
  2. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with dates.
     
  4. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    Ohhh...right. I found the book that says the DSS version of the Book of Isaiah translates better with the Book of Mormon quotes of Isaiah than the KJV does, but its in my car and I'm in school. So I'll be able to quote it this evening.:D
     
  5. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,617
    Ratings:
    +176
    You might find this book (available online free) enlightening:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml
    </H2>
     
  6. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    This is my original post in response to a post by Sojourner about new manuscripts that we have now, that are better than the KJV, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    Yeah, I think I know what I'm talking about, this time.:eek:
    OK:biglaugh: Do you know what you're talking about?
    Of course:D
    Alright I finally have the book on the Dead Sea Scrolls that talks about the translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll. It was written by Donald Parry, a Professor of Hebrew and Hebrew literature at BYU, and Stephen Ricks, also a Professor of Hebrew at BYU. This is going to be mostly from their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls-Questions and Answers.

    "Several readings of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are supported by the Isaiah scroll."

    "1. In many cases passages in the Isaiah scroll and in the BoM contain the conjunction and, which is lacking in the corresponding KJV text. Compare the following:

    "and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not" (KJV, Isaiah 3:9)

    "and they declare their sin as Sodom, and they hide it not" (Isaiah Scroll, Isaiah 3:9)

    "and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it" (BoM, 2 Nephi 13:9=Isaiah 3:9)

    2. Second Nephi 24:32 lacks the word one, which appears in Isaiah 14:32. The BoM version thus makes messengers the subject of the verb answer. The Hebrew Bible uses a singular verb, but the Isaiah scroll uses the plural, in agreement w/ the BoM:

    "What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (KJV, Isaiah 14:32)

    "What shall then answer the messengers of the nations?" (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 14:32)

    "What shall the answer the messengers of the nations?" (BoM, 2 Nephi 24:32=Isaiah14:32)

    3. Tn the KJV, Isaiah 48:11 reads, "for how should my name be polluted?" while 1Nephi 20:11 Reads, "for I will not suffer my name to be polluted." The Isaiah scroll supports the BoM by having the verb in the first person, as follows:
    "for I will not suffer my name to be polluted" (Isaiah Scroll, Isaiah 14:32)

    4. In the KJV, Isaiah 50:2 reads, "their fish stinketh, because there is no water," and the Isaiah scroll reads, "their fish dry up because there is no water." 2 Nephi 7:2 essentially preserves the verb stinketh from the KJV and the phrasal verb dry up from the Isaiah scroll, it reads:"their fish to stink becauase the waters are dried up."

    5. Often a singular noun in the KJV is represented by a plural noun in the BoM. One example of this appears in Isaiah 9:9, where the KJV reads, inhabitant, and 2 Nephi 19:9 reads, inhabitants. The Isaiah scroll supports the reading of the BoM w/ its reaking of inhabitants:

    "and the inhabitant of Samaria" (KJV, Isaiah 9:9)

    "and the inhabitants of Samaria" (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 9:9)

    "and the inhabitants of Samaria" (BoM, 2 Nephi 19:9=Isaiah 9:9)

    These examples of variant readings in which the Isaiah passages in the BoM agree w/ the Isaiah scroll, but not w/ the KJV could be multiplied."

    This is me again. What did you guys think? Am I still wrong? Sorry about the length, but I think it was worth it.;)
     
  7. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,323
    Ratings:
    +5,271
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    The original question was, "Why is the KJV a good translation?" Your answer was: because it is closest to the Joseph Smith translation, and because [LDS] is the only true church, and they use the KJV traslation.

    My answer to you was twofold. First, you're basing your answer on the assumption that the LDS claim to sole truth and authority is correct. It most assuredly is not. Second, the KJV isn't the most correct, either because the LDS use it, or because it is closest to the J.S. version. Fact is, it is less correct than the NRSV. The King James scholars didn't have access to the archaeology, cultural anthropology, language studies, literary and form criticism, or the ancient texts we have access to today, of which the DSS are but one example of many. All kinds of scholarship from many different disciplines go into advanced Biblical scholarship.

    By your own admission, the KJV differs from the DSS. Your examples here bear that out. That does not, in and of itself, prove anything.

    Another question to you is, why does the LDS church use the KJV, which would be considered an "apostate" version? If God took authority away from the earth after the death of the last original apostle, then the KJV translators would be apostate translators, and their translation could not be considered authoritative. In fact, the whole Biblical Canon would be considered apostate, having been compiled by apostate church leaders and set in the second century at the earliest. Am I missing something here?
     
  8. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Ok, it has been a few years since my Hebrew courses, but I don't think that the conjunction and proves anything. I can't imagine how a scribe could leave this out, because he would simply not know how to write Hebrew because the conjunction translated and in Enlgish is a construct form in a strand of words. This is not something IMHO that scribes will likely miss because all they have to do is leave off the end of the word and go on to the next without adding a postnominal suffix.

    If there is actually a readable difference in the text, then it would dramatically change the meaning in the Hebrew and therefore the translations would be hugely variant from the KJV and Smith and one would match the Hebrew.

    We would have to compare the Hebrew from the text that the KJV translators actually used to the source that Jospeh Smith used to the DSS. Unfortunately, we can't speculate as to the nature of Smith's sources because we don't have them.

    We know the Smith didn't have the DSS, but the KJV was readily available. The easiest explanation is simply that he didn't want to copy all of the KJV word for word.
     
  9. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    We do not consider the Bible apostate, but we consider the churches that use the Bible to be apostate. The translators, for the most part were inspired of God. The idiots that took many of the " plain and precious" parts of the Bible away, obviously weren't inspired of God. It is, sort of, the same way we view Martan Luther. Is the Luthern Chuch right? No, but we still feel he was inspired of God to break away from the Catholic Church, because it esablished greater religious freedom. The KJV along w/ the Joseph Smith Translation is the best translation of the Bible on the Earth.
     
  10. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,048
    Ratings:
    +861
    :biglaugh:
     
  11. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    In my original post I said that the DSS correspond better to the BoM than it does the KJV, and I showed you 5 different ways it does. And in the book, this was only a poliminary study done to compare the three. After a more thorogh study is done of the 3 that there will be a host of others.
    Joseph Smith's source was God. So he guessed right. :eek: That's it, you finally uncovered the truth. Oh my goodness. :bonk:
     
  12. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    your more than welcome to respond w/ more than a smiley
     
  13. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    The really sad thing is you think that you've proven something.:eek:
     
  14. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    My goodness. Try applying the rules of logic to this one.
     
  15. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    lol...Which part of the post??? I can only assume you're talking about the last part. ohhh, it's hopeless :bonk:
     
  16. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    What do you mean???
     
  17. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    Ahhhh...my name looks like it grew moss on it!!! I shouldn't have bought the glowing name
     
  18. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I think it was one of the silliest posts that I've encountered in quite some times.
     
  19. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    Why??? Because you told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and I showed you I did??? It makes sense.
     
  20. Yasin

    Yasin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    Ratings:
    +9
    From my knowledge the RSV (which goes back to the most ancient authorities) is the most up to date version today.
    Thirty-two scholars and fifty co-operating denominations, has this to say about the KJV:

    "Yet the King James Version has grave defects".

    "...that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision....."


    Respectively, Yasin:bounce
     
Loading...