Question concerning the sheep

The point was not about you making any translation--but rather--about the original text--as the posts show:
Have you no understanding? Only those who made the first translations have the original text. I did not therefore I do not have it.
So, again--what "original text" have you to present to us--as an autograph?
You have to ask your translators what text did they translate into English.
All Greek texts are translations themselves.
Of course but some are copies of the original Hebrew text , are they not? Therefore they are the original text translated into Greek.
What translations are you referring to--which was translated from an autograph?
There are copies of the Torah and copies of the epistles. The first would be copies of the original texts. You cannot have copies without an original. Well except in your case, which is why I am asking you how that is done.
If you have no autographed text then the scriptures are not valid. It's that simple. So is the scripture valid? Yes or No.


The Septuagint is a translation, therefore, not the autograph.
A copy of an autographed text is valid, and a translation of a valid text is validated by a valid copy.
From other translations. All we have is translations, no autographs.
Are you saying that no one validated any of the copies or translations? If that is the case then no scriptures are valid.
That's why your claim does not carry the weight of proof.
In that case, the scripture does not carry any weight or proof. You seem to be saying that the scripture you are reading were never validated.
 
Only those who made the first translations have the original text.

Past tense--"had" the original text. There is no original text extant today.

You have to ask your translators what text did they translate into English.

Why? I'm not the one questioning the translation:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:Of course but some are copies of the original Hebrew text ,

Of course but some are copies of the original Hebrew text , are they not? Therefore they are the original text translated into Greek.

That does not add up. Which copies are you claiming are copies of the original text? There are copies of copies. And copies of copies of copies, etc.

Which copy are you referring to as being the very one which comes from the original Hebrew autograph?
 
Past tense--"had" the original text. There is no original text extant today.
so where did it go? You are claiming that they had it. Please tell us where it went. And if they had it wouldn't you think that someone would have had it copied and verified?
Why? I'm not the one questioning the translation:
So you just believe they translated the scripture out of thin air? You never asked How the scripture came to be the bible and how it was verified? No wonder you just believe whatever your pastor tells you.
Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:Of course but some are copies of the original Hebrew text ,
That is not Hebrew text. The Jews claim they have the Torah with the same words from the original law. Have you verified what you are posting with what they have?
That does not add up. Which copies are you claiming are copies of the original text?
All copies should be copies of the original text for the scripture to be verified. You seem to be saying that the scripture is not verified.
There are copies of copies. And copies of copies of copies, etc.
Copies of what? If not the copy of a copy of an original copy then it is not valid. Who validated that they are indeed copies of the scripture as you claim they are if they are not copied from validated texts?
Which copy are you referring to as being the very one which comes from the original Hebrew autograph?
They all should. If not how are they validated as scripture in the first place?
 
so where did it go? You are claiming that they had it. Please tell us where it went. And if they had it wouldn't you think that someone would have had it copied and verified?

There aren't any autographs extant--regardless of where they went, or who might have copied or verified them.

So you just believe they translated the scripture out of thin air? You never asked How the scripture came to be the bible and how it was verified? No wonder you just believe whatever your pastor tells you.

What is your evidence my pastor has ever mentioned this scripture?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:


That is not Hebrew text. The Jews claim they have the Torah with the same words from the original law. Have you verified what you are posting with what they have?

The Jews don't have any autographs either.

All copies should be copies of the original text for the scripture to be verified. You seem to be saying that the scripture is not verified.

Cite, please. Never made any such argument.

Copies of what? If not the copy of a copy of an original copy then it is not valid.

So--what copy of the original autographs are you claiming?

Who validated that they are indeed copies of the scripture as you claim they are if they are not copied from validated texts?

Define "validated texts".
 
There aren't any autographs extant--regardless of where they went, or who might have copied or verified them.
Do you understand what you read? Do you read what you post? It does not have to be an autograph. As long as it is a verified copy of the autograph. If you don't have that there is no way to call it the scripture.
What is your evidence my pastor has ever mentioned this scripture?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
read my post slowly...Where did I say your pastor mentioned...
Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
The Jews don't have any autographs either.
Do you believe the words they have come directly from autographs?
Cite, please. Never made any such argument.
read my text ..I said it seems...I keep asking you how are the scriptures verified, you are yet to say how. Therefore it seems as if you are unable to say how they are verified, so it may be that you think they are not verified.

So--what copy of the original autographs are you claiming?
Scribes always made copies of the scriptures.
Define "validated texts".
to validate is to check or prove what you have is what you are saying it is. If you don't have something to check the scripture against (for example a copy of the original) then it cannot be verified as scripture.
 
Do you understand what you read? Do you read what you post? It does not have to be an autograph. As long as it is a verified copy of the autograph.

And who is the Magnus Pro who dictates the "verified copies" of the translations?

Newbirth--please give us the copy name which you believe is a copy of the autograph. There are people who would pay millions to have one.

If you don't have that there is no way to call it the scripture.

LOL! Sure thing.
 
No, it does not. You are just making a claim. Your statement shows that your doctrine is not the scripture.

Yea! right... all that you stated above is pure speculation...you give no facts, no evidence just your opinion, why should we listen to you? Hmm


Jesus already unraveled the scriptures to those who believe. The fact that you had to wait on the DSS to unravel the original shows that it was not unraveled to your leaders before the DSS was discovered.
Then you ought to study our doctrine and compare it to the DSS, will you? not in this lifetime I predict... you're all bluff... again should we listen to you? hmm


Again your words prove that LDS doctrine is not the scripture. They only parallel some of the ideas.
I can safely say you never read the BOM, its that obvious. Go back to you anti mormon literature and worship that!
 
And who is the Magnus Pro who dictates the "verified copies" of the translations?

Newbirth--please give us the copy name which you believe is a copy of the autograph. There are people who would pay millions to have one.



LOL! Sure thing.
He is just another troll... we are getting a lot lately.....

???:ROFLMAO::giggle:?:p?
 
And who is the Magnus Pro who dictates the "verified copies" of the translations?
I am asking you if what your translators translated are verified scriptures. If so how were they verified? Those who originally followed the scriptures. Do you think the scriptures fell from the skies? Men wrote it first and continued to make copies. You are pretending to be smart with foolishness.
Newbirth--please give us the copy name which you believe is a copy of the autograph.
You seem to be saying that none of the texts are copies of an autograph. Please explain how they became the scriptures if they are not copies of an autograph.
There are people who would pay millions to have one.
Name the people who would pay millions to have one.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep...You just confirmed that your scriptures are not scriptures
 
He is just another troll... we are getting a lot lately.....

???:ROFLMAO::giggle:?:p?
Since you have nothing to contribute to the discussion except name calling. Your post makes you a troll. It is apparent that some people don't even know the meaning of the words they post.
 
I am asking you if what your translators translated are verified scriptures.

And I'm asking you who is the Magnus who stamps texts as "verified".

If so how were they verified?

That's a good question--and the very question I am asking you--since you are the one who introduced the term "verified".

Those who originally followed the scriptures.

Following scriptures does not produce autographs, nor first copies of the autographs.

Do you think the scriptures fell from the skies? Men wrote it first and continued to make copies.

That doesn't answer anything specifically. The only thing we possess today are the copies of copies. I believe those copies are sufficient. Don't you?

If not--then why not?

You seem to be saying that none of the texts are copies of an autograph.

I haven't found any source which states the copies we have are the first copies of autographs. We have copies of copies.

Here is the evidence:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

What is your evidence that is wrong?
 
Yea! right... all that you stated above is pure speculation...you give no facts, no evidence just your opinion, why should we listen to you? Hmm
You are supporting a person who claims that their translation of the scripture is not verified. And who is WE? You can only listen for yourself.
Then you ought to study our doctrine and compare it to the DSS, will you? not in this lifetime I predict... you're all bluff... again should we listen to you? hmm
Your doctrine? Are you serious? The DSS confirms that scribes copied the scriptures to preserve them. Anyway, you are going on a rabbit trail. But since you brought it up does the DSS say "council of gods?"

Your Doctrine is not in the DSS...your doctrine is in BOM...
I can safely say you never read the BOM, its that obvious.
I can safely say that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles did not read the BOM either. What is your point?
Go back to you anti mormon literature and worship that!
I don't worship scripture. It seems like you do. Jesus did not read from the BOM. In fact the BOM mentions Jesus as the name of the Messiah when it should be translated as Yeshua from the Hebrew text. But Smiths says his plates were written in reformed Egyptian...
 
And I'm asking you who is the Magnus who stamps texts as "verified".
Why are you asking me? You have to ask the translators if the translated verified scriptures. If I carry a piece of text to a translator and claim it is scripture do you think he will just accept it as scripture?
That's a good question--and the very question I am asking you--since you are the one who introduced the term "verified".
Since I introduced the term I asked you how did your translators verify what they were translating from was indeed scripture. If you are unable to answer that then I am unable to answer your question
Following scriptures does not produce autographs, nor first copies of the autographs.
I never said they did. Copies would contain exactly what the original has. That is why they are called copies. A copy of your birth certificate has the same information as the original. It is the information we are interested in.
That doesn't answer anything specifically.
It is a question and it is specific to where your scripture-written text came from.
The only thing we possess today are the copies of copies.
Copies will have the same information as an original wouldn't they? So I will ask you in another way. Do your translators have original information?
I believe those copies are sufficient. Don't you?
What are they copies of? Are they copies of the original information?
If not--then why not?
If they are not copies of the original information from the original scriptures then certainly not. Wouldn't you agree?
I haven't found any source which states the copies we have are the first copies of autographs. We have copies of copies.
Copies replicate the same information, which is why they are called copies. That is not so hard to understand. The first copy will have the same information as the last copy
Here is the evidence:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
Where is the Hebrew text the Psalm was translated to English from? Showing an English translation is not proof of anything.
What is your evidence that is wrong?
Here are the Hebrew words and their English translations. (10 ba a dat does not translate council (2) Elohim does not translate YHWH
◄ Psalm 82:1 ►
NASB Lexicon
NASB ©HebrewStrong'sOrigin
A Psalm of Asaph. Godאֱ‍ֽלֹהִ֗ים
(e·lo·him)
430: God, godpl. of eloah
takes His standנִצָּ֥ב
(ni·tzav)
5324: to take one's stand, standa prim. root
in His own congregation;בַּעֲדַת־
(ba·'a·dat-)
5712: congregationfrom yaad
He judgesיִשְׁפֹּֽט׃
(yish·pot.)
8199: to judge, governa prim. root
in the midstבְּקֶ֖רֶב
(be·ke·rev)
7130: inward part, midstfrom an unused word
of the rulers.אֱלֹהִ֣ים
(e·lo·him)
430: God, godpl. of eloah
 
You are supporting a person who claims that their translation of the scripture is not verified. And who is WE? You can only listen for yourself.

So once more, you bring very little to the conversation, you mostly ask questions.




Your doctrine? Are you serious? The DSS confirms that scribes copied the scriptures to preserve them. Anyway, you are going on a rabbit trail. But since you brought it up does the DSS say "council of gods?"

Paul Sanders summarizes the current scholarly consensus on this matter nicely: “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the [Masoretic Text] and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.”



Your Doctrine is not in the DSS...your doctrine is in BOM...

Mormons have taken a keen interest in the scrolls for several reasons. Foremost among these, they want to support a portrait of early Christianity which is firmly rooted in apocalyptic Judaism.... Nibley feels that there is a line of continuity between the desert sectarians represented by Lehi and his family (cf. 1 Nephi 2), the community at Qumran, earliest Christianity, and second-century gnosticism. The argument being put forth is not that the Qumran Essenes were proto-Mormons, but simply that Mormonism has more in common with the apocalyptic belief system represented at Qumran than with that of Hellenized Christianity. Nibley continues: "Now with the discovery and admission of the existence of typical New Testament expressions, doctrines, and ordinances well before the time of Christ, the one effective argument against the Book of Mormon collapses."(1) Elsewhere he points to ten parallels between the Qumran literature and the Book of Mormon....
Nibley is not alone in pointing out parallels between the Qumran texts and Mormon scripture. William J. Hamblin complains that "the critics [of Mormonism] have never explained why we find close linguistic and literary parallels between the figure Mahujah in Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic fragments and the Book of Enoch and Mahijah questioning Enoch in the book of Moses (Moses 6:40)."(2) ... Stephen E. Robinson points to numerous similarities between the Qumran community and the Latter-day Saints. He notes that the Qumranites wrote important information on metal, they believed in baptism(s) by immersion,(3) their community was led by a council of twelve men with three governing priests, they had sacred meals of bread and wine administered by priests,(4) and they believed in continuing revelation through a prophetic leader. He writes, "All of this leads to the conclusion that in many ways the Essenes may have been closer to the [Mormon] gospel than other Jewish sects."(5) As with defenses of the Book of Mormon, more examples could be listed. In light of the growing participation of LDS scholars in Scrolls research we can be sure that many more will be brought to our attention....
Footnotes cited above:
1. Nibley, "More Voices," 242.
2. William J. Hamblin, "An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6 no. 1 (1994):484-485. Hamblin is referring to the Book of the Giants fragments 4Q203, 4Q530, and 6Q8. For an extended discussion of this and other parallels, see Hugh W. Nibley, "Churches in the Wilderness," in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978):155-86.
3. This is thought to be significant because it is an example of Jews baptizing by immersion before the New Testament, thus showing the practice in the Book of Mormon not to be anachronistic.
4. The point here is to illustrate a distinctively Christian ordinance with roots in pre-Christian Judaism.
5. Stephen E. Robinson, "Background for the Testaments," The Ensign (December 1982).




I can safely say that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles did not read the BOM either. What is your point?
Chuckle... irrelevant to our conversation. Stretching dude.

I don't worship scripture. It seems like you do. Jesus did not read from the BOM. In fact the BOM mentions Jesus as the name of the Messiah when it should be translated as Yeshua from the Hebrew text. But Smiths says his plates were written in reformed Egyptian...
Chapter and verse, nothing else will help you unless you source everything you criticize.




Your doctrine? Are you serious? The DSS confirms that scribes copied the scriptures to preserve them. Anyway, you are going on a rabbit trail. But since you brought it up does the DSS say "council of gods?"

Read Sanders statement again...



Your Doctrine is not in the DSS...your doctrine is in BOM...
LDS writers are not alone in noting various parallels between these ancient texts and Mormon literature. James H. Charlesworth, in a lecture delivered at Brigham Young University entitled, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," points to what he describes as "important parallels . . . that deserve careful examination." He cites examples from 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon and the Testament of Adam.(1) If the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings thinks such examples deserve "careful examination," it might be wise for evangelicals to do some examining. [italics in the original] ... Yale's Harold Bloom is perplexed as how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writings and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself though what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."(2)

Footnotes cited above:
1. James H. Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 99-137. Non-LDS biblical scholars Jacob Milgrom, David Noel Freedman, W.D. Davies and Krister Stendahl also contributed to this volume.

2. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101 (emphasis added).

 
So once more, you bring very little to the conversation, you mostly ask questions.
I like people to clarify their position as to what they believe. Are you scared to answer questions?
Paul Sanders summarizes the current scholarly consensus on this matter nicely: “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the [Masoretic Text] and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.”
You seem to have an understanding problem. There are many gods but only one true God 1 Cor 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Chuckle... irrelevant to our conversation. Stretching dude.
It is relevant to the discussion since you believe I should read it
Chapter and verse, nothing else will help you unless you source everything you criticize.
There is no mention of the BOM in the scriptures.
Read Sanders statement again...




LDS writers are not alone in noting various parallels between these ancient texts and Mormon literature. James H. Charlesworth, in a lecture delivered at Brigham Young University entitled, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," points to what he describes as "important parallels . . . that deserve careful examination." He cites examples from 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon and the Testament of Adam.(1) If the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings thinks such examples deserve "careful examination," it might be wise for evangelicals to do some examining. [italics in the original] ... Yale's Harold Bloom is perplexed as how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writings and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself though what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."(2)

Footnotes cited above:
1. James H. Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 99-137. Non-LDS biblical scholars Jacob Milgrom, David Noel Freedman, W.D. Davies and Krister Stendahl also contributed to this volume.

2. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101 (emphasis added).
Why should I read it? The scripture does not direct us to reas Sanders or BOM...
 
Nice try troll,
Where did I troll you?
you are not here to debate but to prove your scholarly efforts at Mormonism which isn't working, your response is noted and and also your provocative online aggravating demeanor...
You are the one not debating...You keep attacking me.
I think I will move on to more interesting folks...
You can leave the same way you came.
you can reply with your usual sarcastic and meandering efforts if you want...
I am very factual. Did I call anyone a troll?
but its noted at least by me you're a fake.
A fake what? Try to make what you post sensible.
You my friend would be consider a waste of time and effort... chuckle.
That is because you cannot handle the truth. Run away quickly.
 
Why are you asking me? You have to ask the translators if the translated verified scriptures. If I carry a piece of text to a translator and claim it is scripture do you think he will just accept it as scripture?

Since I introduced the term I asked you how did your translators verify what they were translating from was indeed scripture. If you are unable to answer that then I am unable to answer your question

I've never questioned whether it was scripture--I accept it as such:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

What is your evidence the translators didn't accept that as scripture? Why shouldn't all accept that as scripture?

Just so it violates someone's theology isn't a reason to reject it.

I never said they did. Copies would contain exactly what the original has.

Everything we have are copies. The above scripture is a translated copy.

That is why they are called copies. A copy of your birth certificate has the same information as the original. It is the information we are interested in.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the copy above.

Copies will have the same information as an original wouldn't they? So I will ask you in another way. Do your translators have original information?

That cannot be proved one way or the other--as we have no originals, as to the autographs. I believe what we have is very accurate.

If they are not copies of the original information from the original scriptures then certainly not. Wouldn't you agree?

You keep basing your argument on something which isn't extant. There are no autographs extant--so your argument becomes obscure when you interject the autograph condition.

Copies replicate the same information, which is why they are called copies.

If that is true, then one wouldn't have any problem with this copy:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
 
I've never questioned whether it was scripture--I accept it as such:
Then you shouldn't be having this discussion with me.
Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

What is your evidence the translators didn't accept that as scripture?
I never made that claim. Why are you asking me fof evidence of something that I did not claim?
Why shouldn't all accept that as scripture?
The same reason they don't accept the Koran and the Gita.
Just so it violates someone's theology isn't a reason to reject it.
Then you must also accept the Koran and the Gita as scriptures.
Everything we have are copies.
Copies of what? The first text is the original, all replications afterward are copies. In order for them to be copies they must contain the exact information as the original.
The above scripture is a translated copy.
A translated copy of what? Did the translators say it was translated from a copy of the original information?
Then you shouldn't have any problem with the copy above.
Copy of what? Are you saying that is a copy of the original information? You claimed that you simply believe it is scripture. You never asked a question tou never asked for verification You never asked how they determined it that was indeed a copy of the original information.
That cannot be proved one way or the other--as we have no originals, as to the autographs.
So you are saying the information is not the same as in the original autograph?
I believe what we have is very accurate.
Accurate compared to what?
You keep basing your argument on something which isn't extant.
No, I am not, you are making it out to be. You are saying that the original information does not exist.
There are no autographs extant--so your argument becomes obscure when you interject the autograph condition.
I never made an argument about existing autographs, you did. My argument is about original information. Copies have identical information as the original.
If that is true, then one wouldn't have any problem with this copy:

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
You are not making any sense. That is English. The scripture was not written in English by the authors. You cannot put Hebrew in a copy machine and get out English. Do you know what a copy is?
 
Back
Top