Re: The Other Reason -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:36:01 05/10/11 Tue
Author: Lois
Subject: Re: The Other Reason
In reply to: George 's message, "The Other Reason" on 21:31:12 05/09/11 Mon

>Alhtough many people are leaving the RLDS church
>because the leadership no longer actually believes and
>teaches the classic, so-called orthodox RLDS faith,
>there is another reason.
>
>This weekend, I gave up on a very long term project
>that I'd been working on for a long time. I was
>typesetting the 1867 Inspired Version into the modern
>format, in paragraph form, using the paragraphs marked
>in the KJV and (for the "revealed portions") the
>paragraphing in the 1852 Pearl of Great Price.
>
>Finally after all this time it began to dawn on me
>that the Inspired Version is the worst translation of
>the Bible ever published. The idea of having missing
>portions of the Bible restored is a good one, and
>appealing, but there are so many existing passages
>that are rewritten in such a way that does not make
>any sense that comprehensive use of the Inspired
>Version is something that folks like John actually
>should avoid. Revisit the rendering of
>Genesis, chapter 6 to see what I'm talking about.
>
>The Massoretic text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
>Septuagint, and the Vulgate all say something like
>this:
>
>"There were giants in the earth in those days, and
>also afterward, when the Sons of God went in unto the
>daughters of men, and they bore children to them.
>These are the mighty men of old, the men of renown."
>
>The Inspired Version says something like this:
>"There were giants in the earth in those days, and
>they sought Noah to take away his life.... (statement
>that Noah preached to the antediluvians) .... And
>after they had heard him, they came up to him and
>said, We are the sons of God, for are we not marrying
>and giving in marriage? And do not our wives give
>birth to sons for us, who are like the mighty men of
>old, the men of renown?"
>
>The rendering is a complete mess. Not only is the
>entire passage recast to try to revoke the idea that
>angels can come to earth and have sex with human
>women, the prophet failed to exhume the passages in
>the New Testament that refer to this fall of the
>angels and specifically to their mating with human
>women. But he did extract a statement from the New
>Testament made by Jesus about "marrying and giving in
>marriage" and insert it into the text. The attempt to
>negate the implications of nonhumans and humans
>intermarrying resulted in ridiculous statement of
>Noah's detractors in the IV rendering of this passage
>boasting that their wives have given birth to
>legendary characters. That's like Davy Crockett's
>mother bragging in 1786 that the infant in diapers
>that she is dandling on her knee is as famous as Jim
>Bowie, Colonel Travis, and the other heroes of the
>Alamo. Attributing the statement to the Antediluvians
>rather than the ultimate redactor/commentator of
>Genesis has created a time warp in the IV that cannot
>be repaired.
>
>The only apologetic that can be made for the Inspired
>Version is the claim that it is unfinished, and as
>such, should never have been printed until it was, as
>commanded by God. Although the records indicate that
>it was finished in 1833, scholars such as Richard
>Matthews and Richard Howard have stated that the mss.
>of the Inspired Version were continually revised until
>Mr. Smith's death in 1844.
>
>Good thing I no longer belong to a church that uses
>the Inspired Version as its official translation of
>the Bible for all doctrinal matters.
>
>I hope this doesn't offend anybody beyond their
>tolerance point, but it has got to the point where I
>cannot resolve the logical conflicts in traditional
>RLDSism any more than I can resolve the ones in
>LDSism, or in CofCism. As for continuing to print the
>Inspired Version, I see less use for continuing to
>print it than James I did for continuing to print the
>Geneva Bible.
>
>As for a solution that doesn't involve simply opting
>out of the church, because of the problems with the
>Inspired Version, nothing less than a completely new
>translation made by the First Presidency with
>assistance of scholars both inside and outside the
>church would pull the church out of the sand trap at
>this point. The leaderships' tendency to want to
>switch to the Bibles of other sects and/or
>denominations just adds fuel to the fire, since the
>church is supposed to be one step ahead of the others,
>due to the fact of its being restored.
>
>I can see why the leadership has fallen into apostasy.
>People raised in the RLDS church don't know anything
>else, so when they find flaws such as I have found in
>things like the Inspired Version, they have no
>recourse but to suppose that all Christianity is in
>the ditch, and that any way out is a good way.
>
>It's just me talking.
>
>George

George,

I'll have to disagree, even though my own translation is even more grammatically messed up than the original. I don't believe fallen angels mated with mortal women.

Genesis Chapter 8
8 And it came to pass that Noah called upon the children of men, that they should repent, but they hearkened not unto his words.
9 And also, after that they had heard him, they came up before him, saying, Behold, we are the sons of God, have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men? and are we not eating and drinking, and marrying and given in marriage? and our wives bear unto us children, and the same are mighty men, which are like unto them of old, men of great renown. And they hearkened not unto the words of Noah.

Modern day translation by Lois

"8 And it came to pass that Christians called upon the church leadership, that they should repent, but they hearkened not unto their words.
9 And also, after that they had heard the Christians, they came up before them, saying, Behold, aren't we great and wonderful people, proud and arrogant? Have we not taken unto ourselves wives or husbands of whatever sexual persuasion? And aren't we making good incomes, and even if we are GLBT aren't we producing the most brilliant children whom of course we indulge, more intelligent than most, who may or not be GLBT, who we wish to follow us in positions in which they will have authority and photo ops, and the same are the most evolved people the planet has ever seen. And they hearkened not unto the words of anybody who believed in God."

Submitted by Lois

PAPER #3, First Presidency Meetings (Community of Christ), January 9, 1979, 1:45 p.m.
THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCHPage 2

The message of the gospel is concerned with the deepest human needs. It offers no solutions for the problem of collective evil, the question of death, nor even a solution for sin. The gospel is the assurance that all is changed in Christ.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: The Other Reason -- George, 20:18:06 05/10/11 Tue