Comments about ‘LDS Church announces new scripture edition’

Sharrona,

I am unsure as to why you addressed me here as I did not make that statement.

Reference your oft repeated charity scripture/translation citation. What word should Joseph have used? What English word would have better substituted for Love? The more you cite, the more Mormon’s definition seems to hold true “But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

.

3GrandKeys

Understood. But the dictionary says what it says.

A few years ago, in a hotel room, i started reading the bible found there, and for the first time in my life, the bible verses made sense. So I was hoping the church would use the NEW King James Version, which was the version I had been reading that night. 400 year old English that we currently have to read is very hard, and I'm a college graduate.

skeptic: Nothing about the scriptures is a lie

RE: Twin Lights, What word should Joseph have used? Modern translation use Love.
Love (agape)the pure love(agape) of Christ. In Greek It makes no sense. JS misunderstood the KJV.
RE: Bill in Nebraska , the Gift of Holy Ghost. Holy Ghost/Spirit. Same Greek word(pneuma) Poor KJV translation, Modern translations have Holy Spirit.

Sharrona,

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of CHARITY

1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

Origin of CHARITY
Middle English charite, from Anglo-French charité, from Late Latin caritat-, caritas Christian love, from Latin, dearness, from carus dear; akin to Old Irish carae friend, Sanskrit kāma love
First Known Use: 13th century

From a Non-LDS Christian site:

While no English word may contain all of the meaning of the Greek word agape, both "love" and "charity" can be said to be accurate translations of the word.

AND

The word "charity" is especially fitting as a translation of the word agape, because of the close connection between agape and grace. In fact, the word "charity" actually comes from the Greek word charis, or grace.

So, it seems that Joseph got it about right.

Sharrona,

I'm sorry, I have a real time following your arguments. I think it is because you like to throw up a bunch of "facts" but the correlation between those facts and what you think they prove often miss by a mile.

Now you wish to "disprove" Joseph by a word choice, love or charity. I've tried to follow your reasoning. I really have. It just doesn't go anywhere. The equivalence written by the hand of Mormon (not Joseph, I see what you did there) is "charity is the pure love of Christ" resonates deeply with me. The spirit tells me, "This is true. You should be doing more of this. Your God loves these other people just as much as He loves you. Be kind to them. Care for their well being as much as you care for your own. This is the way that Christ loved."

You see? Those are the words in Moroni 7 are of a prophet, written down by a prophet, and translated by another prophet. We can talk about chiasmus, colophones, Hebraisms, non-Biblical Hebrew and Egyptian names - yet you strain at the sliver of a definition of two words? Incredible.

Are we still allowed to reference the old chapter headings in Sunday school or do we have some unlearning to do now?

I don't like being accused of trolling. I'm a 6th generation member, served a mission and held numerous positions in Ward and Stake levels. I simply like to state truths that many of you need to examine for yourselves and see how they fit into the structure of your testimony and understanding of the Church. Many of you "watch" conference, I listen.

Dennis, Think about it: everyone posting on this site is a troll. Different ones may be peering out from opposite sides of the bridge; but each one and all are trolls. You are in good company, stay with it.

RE: Twin Lights and Red Headed Stranger, I'm sorry, I have a real time following your argument.

In our Bible class we use several modern translations for balance, Do you? The Greek (O.T. and N.T) is handy for serious Bible study.
One of many examples:
( Jude 1:6 NIV) And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home… Fallen angels(devils) Nothing to with Ante-mortal being.

(Jude 1:6 NLT)And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment.

(Jude 1:6 KJV) And the angels which kept not their first(*achre, Grk 746) estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day. See Abr 3:26.

*first place, principality, rule, authority, of Angels , Demons.

So many gnats, so late in the day...

'Principal' can be first in importance or leadership, besides 'majority'. 'Thresh' and 'thrash' are variants of one word; the adjacent verses retain their forcefulness. The sons of Mosiah gaining eternal life is textually ambiguous, though the possible application is still as strong to them as to those who merely 'believe' them; and coinage does infer pressed money -- but chapter headings have never been anything but aids or summaries. Abraham's preface still references the catalytic scrolls, whatever additional light the Pearl's introductory note casts. The validity of First Presidency messages doesn't depend upon their canonisation. Saying 'agape is the pure agape of Christ' simply allows that there is an 'agape' which is not pure, or of Christ. Matthew 17 and Mark 9 point to three (or more) titled 'Elias'. Hebrew and Greek are necessary, but taking the dead letter, or dead prophets' bones, as a shield against living oracles is still fatal to faith.

Known historical errors deserve correcting, but much being discussed here, while interesting, doesn't matter. Change it, or leave it alone -- it will bring us no closer to God. Our changing hearts will; loving God and man will.

@Dennis
Why do you continue to ignore the request to provide a reference to when and where Gordon B. Hinckley said that? Please don't try to miss lead people with false information.

@Carsonz.....I ignore it because you want everything on a silver platter. Look it up.

Sharrona, Part 1

Again, you think you use "facts" to back up your argument, but your interpretation of the scriptures is highly influenced by your theology - not the other way around. I see nothing in the three different versions of the scriptures to contradict Joseph Smith. In fact, if you take a closer look, I think they help Joseph's position. The verses uses words in the PAST TENSE "did not keep" "abandoned" "left the place they belonged". It doesn't sound like any new angels are rebelling, just the ones in the past. Also, according to LDS Scripture Lucifer staged a Coup d'etat. Sounds like "leaving" "limits of authority" to me. Also, in John 9:2 the apostles ask about the male born blind. "Did he or his parents sin?" How could someone be punished for sin from birth unless that person first existed before birth?

We use the KJV at church. I have a NIV on my night stand, and two or three other non-KJV bibles in my bedroom. When I study the bible I often read on the Bible Gateway multiple translations on key verses. But what you claim as an advantage of "balance" is not.

Sharrona, part 2

I don't think that the Lord intended for us to have to read Koine Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin and translate our own Bibles. Or to have to have interlinear or side-by-side translations. Or even to rely on the works of scholars and translators. You say you use "several modern translations for balance. Do you?" My response is we use several modern apostles and prophets for truth. Do you?

Who wrote the Bible? Prophets, Priests and Apostles. There are many, many New Testament manuscripts. Which is the most authentic? How is the layperson or even for that matter a scholar to know? How do you tease the correct interpretation out of another work written 2000 years ago without losing the subtleties and multiple meanings? The Pharisees lost out on the chance of a lifetime because they were too busy misinterpreting the scriptures to hear the actual giver of the law in their midst. A living prophet beats out any written scriptures because He will speak in the language of today, and will not brook any false interpretation of man. I bear testimony that Thomas S. Monson is a living, breathing, teaching prophet of God.

@Dennis

"@Carsonz.....I ignore it because you want everything on a silver platter. Look it up."

That's not allowed Dennis. Googling LDS information is akin to reading anti-LDS literature.

@Dennis No I wasnt expecting you to serve it up on a platter, just provide a link or something to it so I and others can actually read and find out for ourselves. As much as I tried I couldnt find it. Again please dont mislead people with things you dont have any references to where you found it.. Here is something you can actually read yourself and see that President Gordon B. Hinckley actually saying and believing that the church does receive continuous revelation and will always. Go to the church website and in the search bar type, "continuos revelation Gordon B. Hinckley." Filter it by magazines and it will be called The Qourom of the First Presidency by Gordon...
Also read article of faith 9 which is doctrines of the church in a nutshell.

Re Sharrona

In your Bible class you use several translations of the Bible.........\

Now you understand why Joseph Smith was confused?

Man is weak and will let little things affect his testimony and lead himself astray from the truth.

The New Scripture Edition is improving by fixing grammatical problems and beginning to acknowledge Church History. These are all positive things, but I don't see how they have anything to do with continuing revelation.