Tonight, (no, I should say this morning because it is past midnight in Idaho Falls) I am thinking of this statement from Aaron’s live blogging of the conference:
Millet says one thing he misses in the OT is a “gospel-centered, Christ-centered approach” to things.
Here is my perception. When Joseph Smith was reading those eye-popping statements in John’s Gospel about Abraham and Moses in reference to Jesus, I think that is what motivated him to go back to the O.T. and rework the text because he thought exactly what Millet is thinking in this conference.
Also, I did notice that Millet would accept the plausibility of the original autographs being inerrant.
Whoa! He has been corrupted by the evangelical inerrantists. He seems torn between Bart Ehrmann and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy formulated 30 years ago (Oct. 1978).
Thirdly, I would have loved to ask all kinds of questions on the “Joseph Smith Translation”.
______
Friends, our church family just finished a four week series this past Wednesday on Bibliology in Ammon: 1) The Canon: From the ten commandments to Ezra the scribe & from Matthew to Revelation (and talking about the Apocrypha); 2) The Maze of Translations: From the LXX, to the Vulgate, to Tyndale, to the NRSV, NLT, and ESV (and covering all the English translations in between); 3) The Modern KJV Controversy; 4) and finally The Bible Fundamentals: Verbal, Plenary Inspiration, Preservation, Sufficiency, and Authority.
Even more important than me mastering the scriptures is the utmost importance of the Word of the Lord mastering me.
Why is he liveblogging in Latin?
Click in, Seth. It is not in Latin.