Posted on 04/05/2007 5:42:47 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Mitt Romney is riding high this week after his victory in "the first primary," which consists of raising cold, hard cash to compete: more than $20 million in the first quarter, $5 million more than his closest contender, Rudy "Lay off my wife!" Giuliani. John McCain came in a lackluster third with $12.5 million.
Romney's campaign benefited from two distinct donor networks, according to media accounts: Wall Street and Mormons. GOP front-runner Rudy, struggling with one of those weird media freak shows erupting around his wife, Judith (her alleged participation in future Cabinet meetings and former puppy killings), must be a little envious on both counts.
Why is it that all the Dem candidates are still married to their first spouse, while among the current crop of leading GOP contenders, the only guy with just one wife is the Mormon?
Truth is, I don't think this is just an accident. There's something about Mormons the rest of us ought to pay attention to: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do much better than almost any other faith group at sustaining a marriage culture -- and they do this while participating fully and successfully in modern life. Utah is above the national average in both household income and the proportion of adults who are college graduates.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"First, you actually cite Atlantic Monthly as a source of Biblical scholarship?? The expert you highlighted is from University of Maryland and follows liberal ideas about the Bible. We don’t allow liberals around here. It stinks up the place."
So because you don't want to deal with the facts?
You talk about the oldest which means nothing if is is not the oringinal text!
****
They even added accents and cantillation symbols toguarantee the proper chanting of biblical passages in worship services. The resultant text, known today as the Masoretic text, exhibits only the most minute, semantically inconsequential variations from one manuscript to another. The oldest extant manuscripts of theMasoretic text, upon which all modern editions of the Hebrew Bible are based, date from the ninth to the eleventh century A.D. --more than a thousand years after the latest book of the Old Testament was written.
As a rule, ancient and medieval scribes felt obliged to copy the received text asaccurately as possible, without making any changes or adjustments.
Yet virtually every scribe who ever copied a biblical manuscript perpetuated the errors of others and introduced a few of his own.
Imagine this process being repeated for one to two thousand years, and you have some idea of the vicissitudes that the Hebrew biblical text has endured.
Compounding the problem was the occasional scribe who made a conscious alteration in the text, either for ideological reasons or because he sincerely thought he was correcting someone else's mistake.
Until 1947 the only direct evidence for the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament was a lone papyrus leaf dating from about 100 B.C.; this preserves the text of the Ten Commandments.
But in 1947 the study of the Old Testament text was suddenly revolutionized by the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls, in a cave at Qumran, near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. Over the next decade another ten caves in the immediate area yielded additional manuscript treasures.
Among the finds (which also included an assortment of nonbiblical texts) were a complete Hebrew scroll of the book of Isaiah, a verse- by-verse commentary incorporating most of the Hebrew text of chapters one and two of Habakkuk, and leather and papyrus fragments of the Hebrew text of every other Old Testament book, with the sole exception of Esther.
Although the age of the manuscripts was initially in question, scholars now generally agree that they date from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D.;a few may go back to the third century B.C.
When the high antiquity of the scrolls was realized, some scholars anticipated that the biblical text preserved in them would differ substantially from the medieval Masoretic text, thereby demonstrating that the OldTestament's journey through the hands of generations of Jewish copyists had left its text in a most imperfect state.
However, although the scrolls furnish numerous readings at variance with the Masoretic tradition, the Dead Sea and Masoretic textsof the Old Testament are strikingly alike.
The most important ancient version of the Old Testament is the Greek Septuagint, originally produced for Greek- speaking Jews in Egypt. Parts of it date from as early as the third and second centuries B.C. As a translation, it is uneven in quality.
In some cases where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text disagree, the Septuagint passage is clearly a bad translation of an underlying Hebrew text that was identical to the version of the passage found in Masoretic manuscripts. But in other instances th discrepancies are too marked to have been caused by poor translation.
Long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars had guessed that in cases where the ancient translator did not appear to be at fault, the Greek text actually reflected a Hebrew original appreciably different from what survives in the Masoretic text.
Um, I had no problem reading and understanding what you posted in # 414, and I’m not sure why you reposted the long quote from your source again. I don’t disagree with the passgae or a majority of the article as found at Atlantic Monthly (which I also read through). Would you like to offer something from your mind for a change?
res,
you are not helping yourself in this conversation. I did read your entire article. If you would look around a bit, you will find that most of the textual criticism in the article has been refuted. That is my only point. I went down that road in seminary back in the early 80s. It’s been more than 20 years ago and it was refuted back then.
ampu
I’m going to post 2 more, and then I’ll be quiet, we’re obviously not going to come to terms on this, and I think we’re on the verge of beating a dead horse.
In that first round of references, let’s look at 2 of them that were so hurredly glossed over, they are important to this discussion.
Eccl. 12: 7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
How can someone “return” from somewhere it has not been to begin with?
Acts 17: 28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,...
What is offspring if not children? We are also called the Children of God in many instances. I think the main point of contention here is the fact that Christ alone is the “only begotten” son of God, and yet, we are all sons of God. Christ is the only begotten in the flesh, but we are all brothers and sisters, from a Heavenly Father.
Num. 16:
22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O
God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?
Num. 27:
16 Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
Deut. 14:
1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
Ps. 82
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
John 16:
28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
Acts 17:
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Rom. 8:
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Book of Mormon
2 Ne. 9:
38 And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.
Alma 40:
11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
D&C 93:
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
I agree with you in principle, GWB; however, these threads consistently get started because somebody (i.e. AWM) attacks the LDS faith/beliefs/denomination/etc with blatant falsehood. We won’t sit back and let slander stand, no matter in what forum in happens to be posted. I’m not particularly concerned about AWM; his mind’s made up. I’m much more interested in those whom his comments would be adversely influencing in the absence of counterpoint.
Likewise, AWM and those who agree with him tend to keep the fire stoked with continued falsehoods (intentional or not - I personally believe AWM is being honest about what he really thinks), supposedly authoritative testimonials, and spotty evidence to support their specious claims.
It’s an idealogical war out there, and people like me will not allow such battles as this to be one-sided.
We still are limited for we have ancient text of scriptures but we don’t have the originals, we have copies of copies!
What we do have is the spirit of discernment through the power of the Holy Ghost.
We are council to “Search the Scriptures” and as we are humble and diligent in doing so the spirit of the HG will both witness and guide us to receive more as well to understand those sacred words!
Thanks Rest! This ancient spirit is weary from this discussion. ;-)
Hey, great to see these last posts have returned to the original thread! The Romney posts seem to have a tendency to drift toward debating LDS theology.
Thanks!
I would not be too sure of Thompson he has some of the same challenges as Romney from the pass such as his statements it is a women choice, endorsing Chafee, and palsy with McCain!
I think Romney will get the nomination I also feel we live in a age where all warts are reveal no one gets a freepass the left will get some protection from the MSM.
But the muck will be raked!
You again blame the Mormons on the list for making these threads about doctrine, when in reality, if Mormon bashers would stick to the subject matter, there would be no issue, and no defense would be required.
I agree with you 100 percent in principle though, let the anti Mormon threads go to the religion forum. But when a thread is hijacked here, there are few LDS members that will stand idly by and allow such things to happen.
You’re right. Your post is anti mormon bigotry. I’m sorry for your ignorance. Instead of listening to inuendo or some “mormon wife”, read real mormon literature. Read Hugh Hewitts book, “A Mormon in the Whitehouse”. Become acquainted with the subject before exposing your unAmerican bigotry. This is a run for president- not a faith converting revival. Stop slamming happy mormon families. You offend me.
Man, people stopped posting to me so I thought this thread had died, then I saw your posts in the recent list.
Wow thanks guys for keeping up the fight for fairness out here. If you get tired on this or any other threads, ping me.
BTW particularly like this one “Acts 17:
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”
Thanks again.
My truth is Christs truth.
Mormonism stands outside that truth.
It’s a valid point. Still, I suspect it’ll probably be unavoidable while those whose knee-jerk reaction against the word “Mormon” continues to prompt them to attack his religion instead of his politics. It would be like me walking up to you and insulting your mother. Would you fail to react?
But you’re right that it’s a shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.