It's ALL GREEK to Mormons!

[Cow Poke]

GREETINGS!

• First, just so one of my Mormon buddies doesn't have a hissy --- the Title is totally made up and does not attempt to summarize or quote anything said by any Mormon, living, dead in effect, or otherwise.
• Second, the quote I will use is admittedly "out of context", but the quote contains the hyperlink from whence it cometh so the inquiring individual can get all the context they can handle
• Fourth, I freely and readily declare I am NO AUTHORITY on Hebrew and Greek, having taken those subjects over 40 years ago, and not having applied myself back then like I have my more recent schooling, where I have carried a 4.0/4.0 -- Back in the old days, I graduated "Lordy how Come!"

In a discussion with Jeff, I noticed that he posted a verse from the CEV (Contemporary English Version) of the Bible, and it piqued my curiosity because....
A) I don't remember Jeff ever quoting from the CEV (though he certainly MAY have!)
2) The Mormons are standardized on the KJV

Here is the citation... (I'll bold the part Jeff was trying to emphasize, as well as the corresponding part in the KJV)

God’s Son has all the brightness of God’s own glory and is like him in every way.
Hebrews 1:3 CEV

And my response....

You KNOW I'm suspicious when you have to switch Bible versions from the KJV!
Let's see what it says in your USUAL (and official) version...
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Yeah, I see why you changed versions!

Here's the quote fragment I want to deal with, where Jeff responds to my comment about changing versions....

Oh, I am happy to plead guilty to appealing to the Bible version that I think best supports LDS doctrine...

I think this pretty well sums up my complaint with the way the Mormons "study" the Bible. And, please note that Jeff's "citation" is only a FRAGMENT of a whole verse, which is only ONE VERSE of a FOUR VERSE sentence in the KJV.

I have accused OC of "reading the Bible through a Mormon worldview", but I think this tops that by quite a bit.

I'd like to get responses from our Mormon friends (heck, EVERYBODY can play) to the following statements or questions....

How much training have you had in Hebrew and/or Greek?
Do you understand the significance of seeking out the actual meaning of a word or phrase in its original use, as much as possible?
Do you understand that the "English" word or phrase could really throw off the meaning when analyzed or used AS the "English word"?
Do you believe it's an acceptable practice (as Jeff suggests) to hunt down the VERSION of the Bible that most conforms to your "belief"?
Do you believe it's an acceptable practice to take a single PHRASE out of a whole sentence to prove a point?

And, in full disclosure, I had ONE class of Hebrew some 40 years ago which I BARELY passed and two classes in Greek in which I did only slightly better. Looking back, one of my biggest regrets about school is that I did NOT pay more attention, or see the value of, Greek.

By the way, I believe Jeff was trying to use this passage in the CEV to demonstrate that God had a corporal body, because Jesus is said to be "like him in every way".

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1:1–4

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.


Utley, R. J. D. (1999). Vol. Volume 10: The Superiority of the New Covenant: Hebrews. Study Guide Commentary Series (8). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

© source where applicable

[Sparko]

[OtherCheek]

GREETINGS!

• First, just so one of my Mormon buddies doesn't have a hissy --- the Title is totally made up and does not attempt to summarize or quote anything said by any Mormon, living, dead in effect, or otherwise.
• Second, the quote I will use is admittedly "out of context", but the quote contains the hyperlink from whence it cometh so the inquiring individual can get all the context they can handle
• Fourth, I freely and readily declare I am NO AUTHORITY on Hebrew and Greek, having taken those subjects over 40 years ago, and not having applied myself back then like I have my more recent schooling, where I have carried a 4.0/4.0 -- Back in the old days, I graduated "Lordy how Come!"

In a discussion with Jeff, I noticed that he posted a verse from the CEV (Contemporary English Version) of the Bible, and it piqued my curiosity because....
A) I don't remember Jeff ever quoting from the CEV (though he certainly MAY have!)
2) The Mormons are standardized on the KJV

Here is the citation... (I'll bold the part Jeff was trying to emphasize, as well as the corresponding part in the KJV)


And my response....



Here's the quote fragment I want to deal with, where Jeff responds to my comment about changing versions....



I think this pretty well sums up my complaint with the way the Mormons "study" the Bible. And, please note that Jeff's "citation" is only a FRAGMENT of a whole verse, which is only ONE VERSE of a FOUR VERSE sentence in the KJV.

I have accused OC of "reading the Bible through a Mormon worldview", but I think this tops that by quite a bit.

I'd like to get responses from our Mormon friends (heck, EVERYBODY can play) to the following statements or questions....

How much training have you had in Hebrew and/or Greek?
Do you understand the significance of seeking out the actual meaning of a word or phrase in its original use, as much as possible?
Do you understand that the "English" word or phrase could really throw off the meaning when analyzed or used AS the "English word"?
Do you believe it's an acceptable practice (as Jeff suggests) to hunt down the VERSION of the Bible that most conforms to your "belief"?
Do you believe it's an acceptable practice to take a single PHRASE out of a whole sentence to prove a point?

And, in full disclosure, I had ONE class of Hebrew some 40 years ago which I BARELY passed and two classes in Greek in which I did only slightly better. Looking back, one of my biggest regrets about school is that I did NOT pay more attention, or see the value of, Greek.

By the way, I believe Jeff was trying to use this passage in the CEV to demonstrate that God had a corporal body, because Jesus is said to be "like him in every way".

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1:1–4

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.


Utley, R. J. D. (1999). Vol. Volume 10: The Superiority of the New Covenant: Hebrews. Study Guide Commentary Series (8). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

© source where applicable

I've heard critics tell me that the KJV is a lousy translation, and they point me to one that supports their position or argument better than the KJV.

[Cow Poke]

I've heard critics tell me that the KJV is a lousy translation, and they point me to one that supports their position or argument better than the KJV.

Thanks!

Now, would you mind actually responding to the OP?

[nrajeff]

[*]First, just so one of my Mormon buddies doesn't have a hissy... ---

What makes you think your caveats will prevent said hissies from occurring? (I mean, if we're as hissy-prone as we're sometimes alleged to be)
.

[*]Second, the quote I will use is admittedly "out of context", but the quote contains the hyperlink from whence it cometh so the inquiring individual can get all the context they can handle

Uh, OK.

[*]Fourth, I freely and readily declare I am NO AUTHORITY on Hebrew and Greek, having taken those subjects over 40 years ago, and not having applied myself back then like I have my more recent schooling, where I have carried a 4.0/4.0 -- Back in the old days, I graduated "Lordy how Come!"

Question: What happened to "Third" ?? Was it literally taken out of the context of the other 3 caveats, or something? : )

In a discussion with Jeff, I noticed that he posted a verse from the CEV (Contemporary English Version) of the Bible, and it piqued my curiosity because....
A) I don't remember Jeff ever quoting from the CEV (though he certainly MAY have!)

I think I have on occasion. When I quote from the Bible, I don't quote with anything approaching exclusivity from the KJV.

2) The Mormons are standardized on the KJV

When I explore a verse, my SOP is to go to Bible Gateway and read it in multiple versions.

I think this pretty well sums up my complaint with the way the Mormons "study" the Bible.

Okay, complaint and stated underlying reasoning for it duly noted.

And, please note that Jeff's "citation" is only a FRAGMENT of a whole verse, which is only ONE VERSE of a FOUR VERSE sentence in the KJV.

And if one reads all FOUR verses, does it change the implied meaning of the verse in question?
a) yes
b) no

It's fine to ASSERT that out-of context interpretation has occurred, but you need to then give evidence that the accused's interpretation is INCORRECT, and that when read "in the context" of the preceding and subsequent verses, the CORRECT interpretation DIFFERS in some significant way from the accused's stated interpretation.

And BTW, the only interpretation of the verse in question that I gave, was what it plainly says: That Jesus and His Father are alike in every way. I may have used that verse to SUPPORT my belief that Jesus' Father has a corporeal body as real as Jesus has, but I didn't interpret the verse as saying "Jesus' Father has a corporeal body." Because obviously the verse does not SAY THAT.

I have accused OC of "reading the Bible through a Mormon worldview", but I think this tops that by quite a bit.

Maybe you took OC's words out of context? : )

I'd like to get responses from our Mormon friends (heck, EVERYBODY can play) to the following statements or questions....

Thanks for broadening the invitation for responses beyond your Mormon friends--otherwise, I wouldn't feel like my response was being solicited.

How much training have you had in Hebrew and/or Greek?

Do you mean formal training? Or just generic training, whether by self-study or otherwise? I have a Nestle's Interlinear NT that I have studied from over the decades.

Do you understand the significance of seeking out the actual meaning of a word or phrase in its original use, as much as possible?

Yes, I think I understand the basic ideas behind biblical hermeneutics/exegesis.

Do you understand that the "English" word or phrase could really throw off the meaning when analyzed or used AS the "English word"?

You mean like "God is spirit" ? Or "In the beginning" ? Yeah. Probably a bad idea to pour our own meanings into ancient documents that were written in a vastly different time and place. Also probably a bad idea to assume that our pet Bible version is the most correct one on the planet, unless there is some really good evidence to back up that assumption.

Do you believe it's an acceptable practice (as Jeff suggests) to hunt down the VERSION of the Bible that most conforms to your "belief"?

Do you deny ever having done such a thing?

Do you believe it's an acceptable practice to take a single PHRASE out of a whole sentence to prove a point?

You mean like "God is spirit" ?

By the way, I believe Jeff was trying to use this passage in the CEV to demonstrate that God had a corporal body, because Jesus is said to be "like him in every way".

I think the verse supports the idea that Jesus and His Father alike in that regard, more than it supports the idea that Jesus and His Father are NOT alike in that regard..

[Cow Poke]

What makes you think your caveats will prevent said hissies from occurring? (I mean, if we're as hissy-prone as we're sometimes alleged to be)

Hissies may still be had, but my disclaimer allows me to say "I told you so".

Question: What happened to "Third" ?? Was it literally taken out of the context of the other 3 caveats, or something? : )

Just wanted to see if anybody actually read. I used to put things like that in my police reports, sometimes even with "if anybody actually reads this, I'll buy you a cup of coffee". (But, no, I am not buying you a cup of coffee )

I think I have on occasion. When I quote from the Bible, I don't quote with anything approaching exclusivity from the KJV.

And I allowed for that.

When I explore a verse, my SOP is to go to Bible Gateway and read it in multiple versions.

I do that too, sometimes, or do the same in my Logos software.

And if one reads all FOUR verses, does it change the implied meaning of the verse in question?
a) yes
b) no

The very fact that you had to find a version that fit your view, and even ADMITTED that (that was quite noble of you, by the way) demonstrates, in my view, poor scholarship. As for "does it change the implied meaning of the verse in question"... um... no, it doesn't change the implied meaning, but it sure can change your inferred meaning.

It's fine to ASSERT that out-of context interpretation has occurred, but you need to then give evidence that the accused's interpretation is INCORRECT, and that when read "in the context" of the preceding and subsequent verses, the CORRECT interpretation CHANGES in some significant way.

The other versions, along with the study of the Greek words, place the emphasis on the "representation of his nature", not on his physical attributes.

Maybe you took OC's words out of context? : )

When I provide an EXACT QUOTE, and properly use the QUOTE FUNCTION, the "context" is fully available for anybody to examine. Don't you think that's fair? Or do you think I should quote the ENTIRE CONVERSATION.

Thanks for broadening the invitation for responses beyond your Mormon friends--otherwise, I wouldn't feel like my response was being solicited.

I consider you one of my Mormon friends, Jeff, whether you like it or not. (In OC's greatly expanded definition of "friend" which seems to include casual acquaintances.)

Do you mean formal training? I have a Nestle's Interlinear NT that I have studied from over the decades.

Yes, I'd be interested to know if you've had ANY classes in Greek or Hebrew, or if you have ever been encouraged OR discouraged to take them. Or even any seminars in use of said interlinears other than "just looking stuff up".

Yes, I think I understand the basic ideas behind biblical hermeneuticsexegesis.

Is there a reason you don't practice it, then?

You mean like "God is spirit" ? Or "In the beginning" ? Yeah. Probably a bad idea to pour our own meanings into ancient documents that were written in a vastly different time and place. Also probably a bad idea to assume that our pet Bible version is the most correct one on the planet, unless there is some really good evidence to back up that assumption.

Isn't your "official" Church version the KJV, Jeff? And the ONLY reason I prefer it is because I spent so much time memorizing Scripture in it, that when I read or preach from one of the other versions, my brain fights with "what's on the page" vs. "what's in my memory. It's a personal problem.

And I sure hope you're not suggesting that I have one "pet Bible version", because I don't. When studying, I use my "parallel Bible", and I often look up other translations, as well as paraphrases and lexicons and VERY EXTENSIVE copy of Logos study software .

Do you deny ever having done such a thing?

Subconsciously, perhaps, but I make a concerted effort to understand a much broader context than "one version". What I do NOT is use the one that seems the most "at odds" with the rest as a "proof text"... that's a sign, IMO, that I'm forcing my view on the Bible, instead of letting it tell me what is true.

You mean like "God is spirit" ?

Yes, if that were my "whole case", that would be poor scholarship.

I think the verse supports the idea that Jesus and His Father alike in that regard, more than it supports the idea that Jesus and His Father are NOT alike in that regard..

Well, OF COURSE you do, because you have already stated, "I am happy to plead guilty to appealing to the Bible version that I think best supports LDS doctrine..." Are you open to actual scholarly study of this, or did you really mean what you said?

[nrajeff]

Just wanted to see if anybody actually read.

Ah, the old "I was just testing you" explanation. OK.

I used to put things like that in my police reports, sometimes even with "if anybody actually reads this, I'll buy you a cup of coffee". (But, no, I am not buying you a cup of coffee )

Well, if you won't buy me coffee, then the whole deal is off! Someone call CNN !

The very fact that you had to find a version that fit your view, and even ADMITTED that (that was quite noble of you, by the way) demonstrates, in my view, poor scholarship.

That may be entirely true. And as a general rule, I avoid doing it, which is why I admitted doing it in this isolated case. But the question that hasn't been answered yet is: Is the CEV WRONG? I reckon they had a translation team that had more formal training in the art/science of textual criticism, hermeneutics, etc. than both you and me put together. Are we qualified to declare their rendering of the verse a mistranslation? Upon what grounds?

As for "does it change the implied meaning of the verse in question"... um... no, it doesn't change the implied meaning, but it sure can change your inferred meaning.

But if my inference was just as the plain English said--that Jesus and His Father are alike in every way--but the IMPLIED meaning was something DIFFERENT from that--then why did those Bible experts render the verse "Jesus and His Father are alike in every way" ? How is the reader supposed to "know" that the verse isn't saying what it so obviously says?

The other versions, along with the study of the Greek words, place the emphasis on the "representation of his nature", not on his physical attributes.

But the Greek word hypostasis (ὑπόστασις Strong's G5287) can also be traqnslated as substance, as in Heb. 11:1 (NKJV)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
It can also be translated as:

1) a setting or placing under
a) thing put under, substructure, foundation

2) that which has foundation, is firm
a) that which has actual existence
1) a substance, real being
b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution (blueletter bible)

Anyway, conceding for sake of argument that what is being emphasized is Jesus' and His Father's "nature," whatever that is, that obviously doesn't preclude the existence of other stuff in there.

I consider you one of my Mormon friends, Jeff, whether you like it or not.

Not much I can do about that, I guess.

Yes, I'd be interested to know if you've had ANY classes in Greek or Hebrew,

None that I can recall right now.

or if you have ever been encouraged OR discouraged to take them.

Oh, yeah, I was forbidden to take them, lest I perchance get some of that dreaded learnin'

Or even any seminars in use of said interlinears other than "just looking stuff up".

I have read portions of books written by Barker and Ehrman and Nibley. Does that count?

Is there a reason you don't practice it, then?

Once a person has perfected something, why continue to practice? :)

Isn't your "official" Church version the KJV, Jeff?

Yes, but perhaps for reasons other than "It is the most correct Bible currently extant." If we can only have one official version, it doesn't mean that all other versions are inferior to the KJV "in every way."

And the ONLY reason I prefer it is because I spent so much time memorizing Scripture in it, that when I read or preach from one of the other versions, my brain fights with "what's on the page" vs. "what's in my memory. It's a personal problem.

I prefer one version one day, another another day, depending on the particular verse in question. It's not as if one version is closest to the OA's "in every way."

And I sure hope you're not suggesting that I have one "pet Bible version", because I don't.

Wasn't suggesting that.

When studying, I use my "parallel Bible", and I often look up other translations, as well as paraphrases and lexicons and VERY EXTENSIVE copy of Logos study software .

But you don't do that to find the version/translation that best supports your own theology/Christology/soteriology, right? I mean, it's not as if you believe your beliefs to be more correct than other people's beliefs, in instances where theirs differ from yours...correct? : )

Subconsciously, perhaps, but I make a concerted effort to understand a much broader context than "one version".

Well, LDS can and do similarly. I know that may come as a shock to you, so if it happens to be a startling revelation.....call CNN and tell them there's breaking news.

What I do NOT is use the one that seems the most "at odds" with the rest as a "proof text"... that's a sign, IMO, that I'm forcing my view on the Bible, instead of letting it tell me what is true.

A fact of reality is that the majority is not always right.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, the old "I was just testing you" explanation. OK.

You SERIOUSLY think that the guy who uses the A, 2, C numbering system wouldn't also use a 1, 2, 4 numbering system? Whatever!

Well, if you won't buy me coffee, then the whole deal is off! Someone call CNN !

Actually, Jeff, I'd be happy to buy you coffee ... or whatever you're allowed to drink... and talk in person.

That may be entirely true.

It is!

And as a general rule, I avoid doing it, which is why I admitted doing it in this isolated case. But the question that hasn't been answered yet is: Is the CEV WRONG?

I really don't know that much about it, Jeff. But it sure isn't a version I hear much about from people who study the Bible. I think it's more of a kids' version.

I reckon they had a translation team that had more formal training in the art/science of textual criticism, hermeneutics, etc. than both you and me put together.

I would hope so.

Are we qualified to declare their rendering of the verse a mistranslation? Upon what grounds?

The preponderance of evidence, the advice of people a whole lot smarter than both of us, scholarly review.....

But if my inference was just as the plain English said--that Jesus and His Father are alike in every way--but the IMPLIED meaning was something DIFFERENT from that--then why did those Bible experts render the verse "Jesus and His Father are alike in every way" ? How is the reader supposed to "know" that the verse isn't saying what it so obviously says?

Well, you could ask the main guy in charge of the translation process, Barclay Newman.... (bolding and smileys mine)

The Contemporary English Version is a simplified version of the Bible designed for children and uneducated adults (at a fourth grade reading level). It is similar to the Good News Bible previously published by the American Bible Society, though at a lower reading level. It was produced by employees of the American Bible Society (ABS) working under the direction of one of the Society's officers, Dr. Barclay M. Newman.

I think Jake got bit by a snake... I'll be back to this.

[nrajeff]

Well, no wonder the CEV makes such good sense in some cases.....

[Cow Poke]

Well, no wonder the CEV makes such good sense in some cases.....

Well, yeah, but most serious students of the Bible wouldn't use a kid's version.

[Cow Poke]

But the Greek word hypostasis (ὑπόστασις Strong's G5287) can also be traqnslated as substance, as in Heb. 11:1 (NKJV)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
It can also be translated as:

That's why I asked about your training in Greek, Jeff. It's not so easy as just looking up the word and seeing what it CAN be translated as.... It's looking at the entire context to see what the MOST LIKELY translation is. And, since neither of us professes to be experts in the original languages, it seems wise to look to those who have made this their life's work.

Anyway, conceding for sake of argument that what is being emphasized is Jesus' and His Father's "nature," whatever that is, that obviously doesn't preclude the existence of other stuff in there.

True -- but do you want to go with what "might be"? Or what most likely is intended.

Not much I can do about that, I guess.

Well, from time to time, it almost seems like you're working NOT to be my friend, but that just makes me that much more determined.

None that I can recall right now.

If you had had classes in Greek and/or Hebrew, or formal training in either, I don't believe you'd be able to forget. We called the Greek class "Baby Greek" because "it kept you up all night". (studying)

Oh, yeah, I was forbidden to take them, lest I perchance get some of that dreaded learnin'

Silly me, I thought we were having a genuine dialogue here. It would NOT surprise me, Jeff, if there was discouragement from studying the original languages --- I had Catholic friends who (back in the 60's) were discouraged from READING THEIR BIBLES.

I have read portions of books written by Barker and Ehrman and Nibley. Does that count?

I honestly don't know much about them, other than what I see here on Tweb.

Yes, but perhaps for reasons other than "It is the most correct Bible currently extant." If we can only have one official version, it doesn't mean that all other versions are inferior to the KJV "in every way."

So what are the reasons?

I prefer one version one day, another another day, depending on the particular verse in question. It's not as if one version is closest to the OA's "in every way."

Well, as we have learned, the CEV is more of a kid's or "uneducated person's" version.

But you don't do that to find the version/translation that best supports your own theology/Christology/soteriology, right?

No - because I'm not committed to a denomination or a religion so much as I am committed to being a Christian. For example, I grew up in a Church where we had deacons, but not elders. I questioned that, studied it, and realized that "elders" were downright Scriptural! (Though, I have to admit, I'm baffled why Mormons have TEENAGE "elders", when you look at the qualifications in the Bible.) Footwashing was another thing that was frowned upon in the Church I grew up in --- it was something "them thar charismatics" did. I actually use footwashing as part of our deacon ordination services now. In a number of ways, studying the Bible has caused me to CHANGE my views or practices.

I mean, it's not as if you believe your beliefs to be more correct than other people's beliefs, in instances where theirs differ from yours...correct? : )

As I read the Bible and ADAPT my views to what I find in the Bible, yes, I believe my views are more correct than other people's, or I'd adopt THEIR views! I mean.... I'm not going to hang onto a belief or view when I find the Bible doesn't support it. As I have already stated, I have CHANGED some of my beliefs, adopting things OTHER churches have taught or practiced. So, yeah, I have adapted.

Well, LDS can and do similarly. I know that may come as a shock to you, so if it happens to be a startling revelation.....call CNN and tell them there's breaking news.

That really doesn't mesh with what you said earlier, Jeff, and what triggered me to start this thread....

Quote Originally posted by nrajeff
Oh, I am happy to plead guilty to appealing to the Bible version that I think best supports LDS doctrine...

To me, that just feels so WRONG.

A fact of reality is that the majority is not always right.

Not always! But you have pointed out that Bible Versions tend to be written by people a whole lot smarter than both of us put together. If a bunch of people INDEPENDENTLY come up with similar conclusions when studying and praying, and you have, basically, a "children's version" with a DIFFERENT slant..... especially where the author himself says his main goal was SIMPLICITY....

Seriously, Jeff, I think we have both learned (at least I have) that the CEV is probably not the best choice for "proof texts".

[nrajeff]

...it seems wise to look to those who have made this their life's work.

And if there are people who have made this their life's work, who happen to be LDS....you will respect their scholarship, right?

Well, from time to time, it almost seems like you're working NOT to be my friend, but that just makes me that much more determined.

For someone who claims to be working at making me your friend, your "work" seems kind of counterproductive at times. Anyhow, the saying "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" comes to mind.

It would NOT surprise me, Jeff, if there was discouragement from studying the original languages --- I had Catholic friends who (back in the 60's) were discouraged from READING THEIR BIBLES.

This just in from CNN: LDS ain't Catholics. We are actually encouraged to study and get as much education as possible. BYU actually offers these things called "scholarships" and "grants" and such, to students who are pursuing degrees in such "verboten" subjects as Ancient Scripture, Biblical studies, etc. Oh, and in foreign languages including Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian.

So what are the reasons?

The KJV has traditionally been the most popular, most widely read translation of the Bible in much of the world. It only makes sense that we would primarily use that version. Would it make sense for us to be evangelizing with an obscure version that the majority of people were not familiar with? That is the main reason, TMK.

No - because I'm not committed to a denomination or a religion so much as I am committed to being a Christian.

Is it possible your Bible studies--all the foreign language classes and "How to Interpret the Bible Without Any Presuppositions Clouding Your Interpretations" classes--might someday result in an epiphany where you realized that it was wrong to conclude that Jesus' Father cannot have a body like His Son has? How deep is your commitment to not be swayed by "traditional" parochial dogmas?

For example, I grew up in a Church where we had deacons, but not elders. I questioned that, studied it, and realized that "elders" were downright Scriptural!

Did you denounce your church as the non-Bible-based church that it so 'obviously' was? How much time do you spend each day publicly criticizing its false teaching? I am betting zero, or at least way less than you spend criticizing LDS teachings.

(Though, I have to admit, I'm baffled why Mormons have TEENAGE "elders", when you look at the qualifications in the Bible.)

I can look for a Maxwell Institute thesis supporting our practice of having lower minimum ages for our elders than "traditional" churches have, if you are really interested in ending your bafflement.

Footwashing was another thing that was frowned upon in the Church I grew up in --- it was something "them thar charismatics" did. I actually use footwashing as part of our deacon ordination services now. In a number of ways, studying the Bible has caused me to CHANGE my views or practices.

That is good to learn, but is the ritual of footwashing as part of deacon ordination supported by the Bible's teachings?

As I read the Bible and ADAPT my views to what I find in the Bible, yes, I believe my views are more correct than other people's, or I'd adopt THEIR views!

That was my point. There probably are relatively few people who believe that other people have superior beliefs to their own--otherwise, they'd abandon their beliefs in favor of the ones they felt to be superior.

I mean.... I'm not going to hang onto a belief or view when I find the Bible doesn't support it. As I have already stated, I have CHANGED some of my beliefs, adopting things OTHER churches have taught or practiced. So, yeah, I have adapted.

What if there are doctrines that are correct and that have God's imprimatur--but the Bible is silent regarding them? What do you do then? It goes without saying that the Bible doesn't have all the answers to all questions. Do you see how adhering to sola biblia
might be holding you back from accepting things that would be good to accept?

If a bunch of people INDEPENDENTLY come up with similar conclusions when studying and praying, and you have, basically, a "children's version" with a DIFFERENT slant..... especially where the author himself says his main goal was SIMPLICITY.... Seriously, Jeff, I think we have both learned (at least I have) that the CEV is probably not the best choice for "proof texts".

What level of education did Jesus' original 12 disciples have, on average? If a Masters in Ancient Near Eastern Languages is required to understand what Jesus was saying to some fishermen and shepherd folk, then we're in trouble. Plus, it "feels wrong" if advanced degrees are de facto requirements for understanding which church's formula for salvation is the most correct one.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with "eternal progression" when it comes to being educated. I just wonder whether the CEV is really deficient in how it was translated. You can tell a 4th-grader the truth at a level he can understand, and it can still be the truth. Or this one of those times when "We need to give milk first, and withhold the meat until they're ready for it" is an okay policy to have?

[Cow Poke]

And if there are people who have made this their life's work, who happen to be LDS....you will respect their scholarship, right?

I wouldn't be afraid to look at it, and I'd consider their methodology, sure. But, quite honestly, knowing what I know about Mormonism, I'd be skeptical.

For someone who claims to be working at making me your friend, your "work" seems kind of counterproductive at times. Anyhow, the saying "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" comes to mind.

I guess that's a difference between us, Jeff. I can stand face to face with you and be totally honest about what I believe, and not feel any hatred or animosity toward you at all. And I can listen to you tell me what you believe, and respect it without getting angry at you.

This just in from CNN: LDS ain't Catholics.

I think that came from the drama department of the local high school, Jeff. Nobody SAID you were Catholics.

We are actually encouraged to study and get as much education as possible. BYU actually offers these things called "scholarships" and "grants" and such, to students who are pursuing degrees in such "verboten" subjects as Ancient Scripture, Biblical studies, etc. Oh, and in foreign languages including Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian.

And drama classes, as well?

The KJV has traditionally been the most popular, most widely read translation of the Bible in much of the world. It only makes sense that we would primarily use that version. Would it make sense for us to be evangelizing with an obscure version that the majority of people were not familiar with? That is the main reason, TMK.

Cool!

Is it possible your Bible studies--all the foreign language classes and "How to Interpret the Bible Without Any Presuppositions Clouding Your Interpretations" classes--

Seriously, can we turn down the drama just a WEE bit?

might someday result in an epiphany where you realized that it was wrong to conclude that Jesus' Father cannot have a body like His Son has?

It would not change my view that Jesus saved me and will present me faultless to the Father, Jeff. And I honestly haven't studied it deeply, but have no reason to believe that God is a 6 foot tall man limited to a mortal type body (or however you wish to describe it) when we know He is omnipotent and omnipresent... and I certainly have no reason to believe he "learned" to be God, or was once a mortal. That sounds a lot more like mythology than theology.

But, sure, if I were shown evidence from the Bible that proves or demonstrates that God had a physical body, I'd certainly have to consider it!

How deep is your commitment to not be swayed by "traditional" parochial dogmas?

I think I've answered that, and even given some examples of changes I have had to make.

Did you denounce your church as the non-Bible-based church that it so 'obviously' was? How much time do you spend each day publicly criticizing its false teaching? I am betting zero, or at least way less than you spend criticizing LDS teachings.

You REALLY don't understand Baptist Churches, Jeff. Most (ALL that I know of) are autonomous ... there is not a "directive" that tells the Church what to believe or teach... that LOCAL BODY of believers did things differently than I subsequently learned was the way I believed things should be done. And they weren't "disobeying" anything .. I mean... I don't know of any COMMAND that Baptist (or Christian) Churches have ELDERS, do you? I mean, it's not like they were teaching that God was once a man, or that you can only attain the highest Heaven by believing in a man OTHER than (in addition to?) Jesus. In all things essential, they were preaching the Word, Jeff.

I can look for a Maxwell Institute thesis supporting our practice of having lower minimum ages for our elders than "traditional" churches have, if you are really interested in ending your bafflement.

I'd rather you just tell me... or do you not know?

That is good to learn, but is the ritual of footwashing as part of deacon ordination supported by the Bible's teachings?

If you mean a place where the Bible connects the practice of footwashing with the laying on of hands, probably not. I believe, however, that what Jesus was doing at the "Lord's Supper" in washing the feet of the disciples was demonstrating "service". The KING OF KINGS bent before the men who, traditionally, should have been serving HIM, and took on the role of (in modern day parlance) a shoeshine boy. He was demonstrating humility in a very powerful way, and I use that to teach the men "we're not ordained to be bosses or big shots --- but to serve". I have seen grown men weep as I washed their feet, realizing the significance of the example Jesus set.

That was my point. There probably are relatively few people who believe that other people have superior beliefs to their own--otherwise, they'd abandon their beliefs in favor of the ones they felt to be superior.

And I have.

What if there are doctrines that are correct and that have God's imprimatur--but the Bible is silent regarding them? What do you do then? It goes without saying that the Bible doesn't have all the answers to all questions. Do you see how adhering to sola biblia
might be holding you back from accepting things that would be good to accept?

I believe the Holy Spirit guides me, Jeff, but I also believe the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict the Bible. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're asking.

What level of education did Jesus' original 12 disciples have, on average?

They had Jesus.

If a Masters in Ancient Near Eastern Languages is required to understand what Jesus was saying to some fishermen and shepherd folk, then we're in trouble. Plus, it "feels wrong" if advanced degrees are de facto requirements for understanding which church's formula for salvation is the most correct one.

And I never said nor implied that. And it's not "understanding what Jesus was saying to some fishermen and shepherd folk".... it's understanding how that was communicated to us. The disciples had Jesus - his body language, facial expression, and the setting dealt with the customs of their day - many things that go into "context" besides "words".

But there is nothing inherently wrong with "eternal progression" when it comes to being educated. I just wonder whether the CEV is really deficient in how it was translated. You can tell a 4th-grader the truth at a level he can understand, and it can still be the truth. Or this one of those times when "We need to give milk first, and withhold the meat until they're ready for it" is an okay policy to have?

Did you read the article, Jeff? (not sure I linked to it) The whole PURPOSE of the CEV appears to be to give an "overview" -- a simple recap, more or less -- to uneducated adults or children... There are "picture Bibles" for little children, and they don't even TRY to get into anything deep or "theology" or "apologetics" or doctrine... "this is Adam and Eve" "they are in the Garden of Eden"...... Have you ever had a "Picture Bible"? The CEV appears, from what I understand, to be, more or less, the next step up from that. The fact is, it was not intended to be a "study Bible".

[David Hayward]

...wrong to conclude that Jesus' Father cannot have a body like His Son has?

So it's true, God really is an old man in the sky. I had thought that a popular misconception.

What level of education did Jesus' original 12 disciples have, on average?

They had Jesus.

What better education could they possibly have.

David

[nrajeff]

So it's true, God really is an old man in the sky. I had thought that a popular misconception.

Interesting non-use of logic there.

What better education could they possibly have.

Then that's all you or I need, right? If so, then all this talk of training in ancient languages and cultures being a prerequisite for understanding the Bible is nonsense? Because "all you need is Jesus" ? Or are among those who think that what's needed is Jesus, PLUS some formal training in Koine Greek?