Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV


Rob Bowman

Recommended Posts

I realize that is your point, but the rhetorical stance is all yours, since all you have are rhetorical questions and hypotheticals contrary to fact.

So are you trying to claim that you don't privilege the Bible and always give it the benefit of the doubt? Really?

Link to comment

Bill,

You had asked how I would respond to an apostle claiming to quote a Hebrew text of scripture while actually quoting a Greek translation of that scripture. I replied by asking you for an example. You wrote:

You present the example, I'll look at it and tell you what I think. I refuse to speculate on what I would say with regard to a hypothetical that is contrary to fact.

McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (2003) goes into detail on all the issues

Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (UBS 1961) has a handy list of major quotations, with side-by-side parallels to the LXX and HB. The differences are also highlighted.

Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (2000) 183-205, give a brief introduction to the issues.

Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007) is indispensable and goes into detail on each biblical quotation or allusion. Its 1200 pages.

All of these sources make it clear that the Septuagint is frequently cited in the NT, and that, when the LXX differs from the Hebrew, the LXX is quite often preferred.

The most famous example is Mt 1:23, where Matthew quotes Isa 7:14 in the LXX parthenos (virgin) over the MT

Link to comment

Bill,

Are you really not getting my point? All you are showing is that the NT often quotes the Septuagint. Duh! I know that. I didn't deny it. What I said was that no NT writer, when quoting the LXX, ever claims erroneously or falsely that he is quoting the Hebrew text.

McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (2003) goes into detail on all the issues

Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (UBS 1961) has a handy list of major quotations, with side-by-side parallels to the LXX and HB. The differences are also highlighted.

Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (2000) 183-205, give a brief introduction to the issues.

Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007) is indispensable and goes into detail on each biblical quotation or allusion. Its 1200 pages.

All of these sources make it clear that the Septuagint is frequently cited in the NT, and that, when the LXX differs from the Hebrew, the LXX is quite often preferred.

The most famous example is Mt 1:23, where Matthew quotes Isa 7:14 in the LXX parthenos (virgin) over the MT

Link to comment

David,

You wrote:

Thanks for the defense. But admittedly, my point was based upon Rob's observation that the present Book of Mormon text reads "bore" rather than "bare." My assumption was that Rob was trying to suggest that this was evidence of a mistake on Joseph's part who may have unintentionally used the form "bore" as a better reflection of his day rather than Isaiah's when of course Christ had already born the sins of the world as a completed action.

I see. No, I was not suggesting that Joseph had made a mistake in using "bore" instead of "bare," but only noting that this is one of the few differences in Mosiah 14 compared to Isaiah 53 KJV; and as I later clarified, it turns out this change didn't come from Joseph at all, but was made in early twentieth-century editions of the BOM.

Link to comment

Are you really not getting my point? All you are showing is that the NT often quotes the Septuagint. Duh! I know that. I didn't deny it. What I said was that no NT writer, when quoting the LXX, ever claims erroneously or falsely that he is quoting the Hebrew text.

WOW!!!

Talk about missing the point.

Germin, you need to help your idol find a clue.

Link to comment

Seriously?

Yes. Dogma is not that different. First of all dogma shares origins; this is particularly true with the "Abrahamic religions". Their cosmology and theology differ only in matters of trivial detail, exaggerated by the perceptions of fundamentalists. To outsiders, the "infighting" is both illogical and ridiculous. What is all the fighting about? Which "God" are we talking about? Fundamentalists can't even get beyond that first debate.

And there is no reason and no evidence to justify the assumption that they were the kinds of people who would have lied about fundamental issues, either.

I wouldn't say "no evidence", since Joseph Smith is shown to have lied on more than one occasion. Certainly, "lesser mortals" would be at least as driven to dissemble with the literal truth in order to protect and further "the work".

Shared but not agreeing on the "literal" details. It is always Joseph Smith who composed the documentation, e.g. the Testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses is a single statement with three and eight signatures appended to them. A genuine collection of witnesses would each individually supply his own version of the experience, not sign below a document composed by Joseph Smith. And in the Kirtland temple we have upwards of a thousand congregants unaware of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith bathed in celestial light and sound on the other side of a curtain: not only are they not aware of the presence of Jesus Christ, Moses, et al. angelic visitants, even Oliver Cowdery does not contribute any details to Joseph Smith's account as recounted in the D&C. And although Martin Harris had an experience that was separate from Whitmer's and Cowdery's, his signature falls below one statement, giving the false impression that he was present when they had their epiphany.

I said: "So I resort to my paradigm, and repeat it again: Mormonism for the Mormons, RCC for the Catholics, Islam for the Muslims, etc. This paradigm of "God's purpose" allows people of all persuasions to be right according to their own lights:"

But wrong according to yours.

Your vision is no less imperialistic, no less "superior," than any others. You purport to know the truth about Mormon claims and Catholic claims and Muslim claims -- a truth not vouchsafed to believing Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims. In claiming to be tolerant of their claims, you subvert all of them in favor of yours. In relativizing their beliefs, you privilege and absolutize yours.

My view is "superior" only if "they" push a dogmatic view that everybody else, including me, is mistaken and must conform or be out of favor with "God". At least Mormon cosmology allows that the "final judgment" is "God's" province alone, and therefore deferred to the afterlife: this allows Mormons to believe that they are right and everyone else mistaken about a great many things, but Mormons in this world don't have to concern themselves with any of that, because mercy will provide an equal opportunity for each soul to learn the gospel of salvation and then accept or reject it with full knowledge. This is an improvement over previous and extant dogmas of "the chosen people": which insist upon conversion in this life or hellfire in the life to come, etc. Insufferable behavior toward non believers is what causes religious confrontation and even wars. Mormons, at least, are "laid back" in their insistence that the world is going to hell; they don't do anything to push an agenda of conversion in the faces of stubborn resistance.

My paradigm is even better still: anyone can believe whatever they must/wish, and there is no device on this planet to break the "tie" between competing dogmas. This means that metaphysical truth is the province of the sovereign individual: between himself and "God" alone. This paradigm allows an infinity of metaphysical truths between each egocentric universe and "God" alone. Only the empirical, i.e. physical world is shared and possessed of singular truths governing every living thing: the metaphysical is outside of this empirical world, ergo it is not to be judged by anyone other than the egocentric soul. And this paradigm says that "God" judges each soul according to its lights/conscience. Anyone lying to himself is as guilty as the next liar, regardless of the metaphysical truth believed in.

How can an infinity of metaphysical truths, each one unique to the recipient, be compatible in the empirical world? Simply according to the justice that defines our actions toward each other. "God" has imbued in the soul a sense of justice, and societies, civilization, works out the details sufficient to cohabitation. It obviously works: religious ideals are freely believed and acted upon, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of another.

So yes, I can say you are wrong to believe that Mormonism/Catholicism/Islam is right to the exclusion of all else. But at least my paradigm will not be infringing upon anyone's rights to believe wrongly. The same cannot be said to be true of historical Catholicism, Islam or even radical Mormonism, et al. the dogmatic religions of the world that have been, or are, bent upon conversion through compulsion or force.

I said: "If Joseph Smith didn't use a KJV, and "God" dictated the BoM metaphysically, then everybody but the Mormons is in trouble. That is inconceivable so it isn't true (for anyone but Mormons anyway)...."

If it's true, it's true. If it's false, it's false for everybody.

You're not being as friendly to the faith-assertions of Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons as you think you are when you declare that, ultimately, they're false.

We will all discover that we "have been mistaken about a great, many, things."

How can you be certain that your ONE WAY is the ONLY WAY? Why now? Why not always? Because Joseph Smith came up with "a great apostasy" theory/exegesis that you believe in? And how is this metaphysical theory of our shared history necessarily the one and only correct metaphysical version?

Why not allow for "God" to reveal himself to each soul individually? And at the same time accept that this revelation will not be the same as any other revelation? We are cut off from each other metaphysically. The so-called shared metaphysical experiences of the "restoration" are anything but. The evidence favors the interpretation that Joseph Smith exerted undue influence and control over the official version of those experiences/visions; they are, in fact, HIS version only. Anywhere that "the witnesses" differ in later recounting of their experiences, these differences do not enter into the "official" (faithful history) version that the Church teaches.

The only paradigm that I need to live true to is my own. You have the same privilege. Where we get into any trouble is if either of us feels that "God" is commanding us to compel "the others" to our metaphysical world view. Perhaps this remains the ultimate truth to accept, when we are discussing our differing religious beliefs: no two are ever exactly alike because no two of us are ever exactly alike, and this denies everybody the "authority" to dictate religious truth to anyone other than himself....

Link to comment

Bill,

What I said was that no NT writer, when quoting the LXX, ever claims erroneously or falsely that he is quoting the Hebrew text.

What does this have to do with the price of rice, strictly speaking of Bill's criticisms?

Link to comment

Bill,

Are you really not getting my point? All you are showing is that the NT often quotes the Septuagint. Duh! I know that. I didn't deny it. What I said was that no NT writer, when quoting the LXX, ever claims erroneously or falsely that he is quoting the Hebrew text.

Quibbling again, I see. It's irrelevant to my point.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

What does this have to do with the price of rice, strictly speaking of Bill's criticisms?

This is the question I should be asking -- that I am asking -- about Bill's supposed criticisms of my argument. They seem to have nothing to do with the issue I raised here.

And Bill, you wrote:

Quibbling again, I see. It's irrelevant to my point.

Perhaps, but your point, whatever it is, seems to be irrelevant to the subject of this thread. But then, perhaps I don't understand your point.

The issue that I raised in this thread is the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV. This would not be a problem if the Book of Mormon purported to be simply a nineteenth-century writing. It does not. It purports to be a nineteenth-century translation of a fifth-century Reformed Egyptian writing. The translation, we are told, was produced in a supernatural way, by the words of the Reformed Egyptian text and a corresponding English translation appearing to Joseph as he stared at a stone inside his hat, which he then dictated to a scribe. Given this reported translation method, it does not make sense for the biblical quotations in the BOM to be dependent on the KJV. To be precise, the biblical quotations in the BOM are supposedly English translations of Reformed Egyptian quotations of the Bible, which in turn were translations of the Hebrew text. Thus, the BOM quotations from the Bible are supposed to be translations of translations, conveyed to Joseph Smith by a method that excluded the use of the KJV.

The NT quotes the OT; sometimes the wording of these quotations looks like a fairly literal translation in Greek of the Hebrew text, but often the wording of the quotations does not correspond to a literal translation of the Hebrew into Greek but instead uses a somewhat different wording, often closely following the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the OT in widespread use by Jews in the first century. Since the NT writings claim to be first-century writings, there is simply no problem here comparable to the problem I am raising concerning the BOM. They claim to quote the OT writings, but they don't claim to be providing a literal, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. They don't say anything about the nature of their quotations that would preclude them using the LXX. There's nothing here of relevance to the issue I am raising about the dependence of the BOM on the KJV.

Suppose a NT writing purported to quote extensively from an earlier Egyptian version of Genesis otherwise unknown to us. If it quoted, say, all of Genesis 2, and its quotation of Genesis 2 corresponded to the LXX in 99% of its wording, we would know that its claim to be quoting from an Egyptian Genesis was false. And that would be a big problem. Of course, this is just a make-believe scenario; nothing of the sort is the case. But something very much like it is what we find with the BOM.

Link to comment

QB,

Perhaps it's just me, but the smug assumptions of superiority for your "God" -- and by extension, for you -- are becoming rather boring.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a "lesser being" than nothing at all, and it is arrogant and offensive for you to describe Him thus.

Shall I tell you what a "lesser being" is? It's the "philosopher's God," the hypothetical deity that revealed himself to no prophets anywhere, ever, but is the product of the mind of a pagan professor (Plato) in his attempt to describe a perfect, abstract, ideal Divinity, of which all gods-that-are are imperfect copies; in much the same way that Plato thought of all real things as imperfect copies of a pure "ideal" that never actually existed anywhere.

The God of the absolutes is an idol made by men's hands; not from wood and stone, but from words. Like all idols, it can neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has His own divine reasons for whatever He does, and is constrained by nothing at all. The God of the absolutes was produced by human logic, and is therefore constrained by logic, being unable to rise above the limitations of his human creators.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created all things, bringing order from chaos. The God of the absolutes is perfectly satisfied and has no needs of any kind; to bring about anything less than him would be both illogical and an imperfection. Therefore, he is logically incapable of creating anything.

As mentioned, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob creates by bringing order from chaos. This is a progressive activity; therefore, human creative activity, at its best, emulates that example, and thus, it its own small way, participates in the divine. Despite being logically unable to do anything but contemplate his own perfection, the God of the absolutes, being incapable of doing anything imperfect, supposedly created everything from nothing, in its most nearly perfect form; every human activity necessarily degrades that primal perfection. We can do nothing but mar, because the God of the absolutes is logically unable to make us capable of improving something that was necessarily already perfect.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has a perfect love for all of His children. The God of the absolutes is perfectly indifferent to his creations, which are even farther beneath him than mould on a cheese is beneath us.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sees the sparrow fall, and hears and answers our prayers, even to the point of setting aside His own plans; He is the "most moved mover." The God of the absolutes cannot be influenced by the desires of any lesser being; he is the "unmoved mover."

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves us so perfectly that He even sent His own son to die for us so that we could live with Him again. The God of the absolutes has no such emotions or attachments.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is loved and worshipped by Godly men and women everywhere. The God of the absolutes is worshipped only by people who are inordinately impressed with their own "superior" intellects.

But he doesn't care. He can't.

That's because he is in every way inferior to the true God.

Regards,

Pahoran

That was lovely as an example and reminder of why I am glad I lack a formal education. I've never been imbued with the sophists, philosophers, the "doctors" of religion/philosophy, the weight of acquired "wisdom" of the ages. I have only inculcated snippets in my passage through the narrow world of my awareness. In the last c. half dozen years my "world" has expanded because of the Internet. My exposure to this "god of the absolutes" has also been minimal. Ironically I first met "him" in the BoM.

Your understanding of the two kinds of god is not the only possible concept. The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is the god I followed from my youth. But He was always a lesser "God" than the concept I could formulate on my own. This concept grew slowly over the decades, until almost at once, like a bursting flower from a swollen bud, my theology came upon me independent of any other theology. That mine shares many similarities with other theologies is explained by the Original Cause of all theologies. There really is a singular, overarching true theology. But it is infinite and not comprehensible by finite minds such as ours. We can entertain the concept of infinity, but we cannot realize the actuality of it: only "God", the only infinite Existence, can comprehend infinity, because "God" IS Infinity.

Your straw man is the repeated comparison between the "God" of "Abraham et al." and the so-called God of the Absolutes. There is no such being as the latter; and the former can only be a glorified creation of "God", not the Source of Existence in the First Place.

The full truth of "God" is not comprehensible to finite minds. Yet each sapient being is directly connected to "God", ergo has a potential realization of all truth as "God" wills. It does not follow that "God" does not possess all the characteristics that we see manifested in the world within ourselves and surrounding each of us. These characteristics can have no other Source BUT "God". There is no "ex nihilo": since Existence is not arguable: so everything must derive from the Necessary Cause - the only Cause that is not caused. It is both fecund creation and Void. Not at the same "time", but simply NOW: both states existing, inclusive of all opposites and conundrums and illogical seeming. Only Infinity can comprehend Existence in its complete, infinitely expanding state of NOW.

There is nothing unaware of uncaring about it. If "God" were to be this puny "God of Absolutes" that your education has contaminated you with, then you would transcend "God" himself, being caring, aware and with purpose, where "God" is not. That is touching on the ultimate logical fallacy....

Link to comment

Suppose a NT writing purported to quote extensively from an earlier Egyptian version of Genesis otherwise unknown to us. If it quoted, say, all of Genesis 2, and its quotation of Genesis 2 corresponded to the LXX in 99% of its wording, we would know that its claim to be quoting from an Egyptian Genesis was false. And that would be a big problem. Of course, this is just a make-believe scenario; nothing of the sort is the case. But something very much like it is what we find with the BOM.

So, if I am understanding you right... you are saying that a 600 B.C. version of Isaiah on Brass Plates, that was then changed to "reformed Egpytian" and then translated into English wouldn't be 99% accurate as a copy of Isaiah from another time peroid that was translated into English.

So basically your upset about this being an argument for inerrancy of scripture?

I still say "so what" and give Kudos to the KJV translators.

Link to comment

The issue that I raised in this thread is the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV. This would not be a problem if the Book of Mormon purported to be simply a nineteenth-century writing. It does not. It purports to be a nineteenth-century translation of a fifth-century Reformed Egyptian writing. The translation, we are told, was produced in a supernatural way, by the words of the Reformed Egyptian text and a corresponding English translation appearing to Joseph as he stared at a stone inside his hat, which he then dictated to a scribe. Given this reported translation method, it does not make sense for the biblical quotations in the BOM to be dependent on the KJV. To be precise, the biblical quotations in the BOM are supposedly English translations of Reformed Egyptian quotations of the Bible, which in turn were translations of the Hebrew text. Thus, the BOM quotations from the Bible are supposed to be translations of translations, conveyed to Joseph Smith by a method that excluded the use of the KJV.

Hello Rob,

You are correct. It makes no sense whatsoever and I find it extremely difficult to defend. Logically, the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon SHOULD resemble that of the Dead Sea Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts and NOT the King James Version. The only logical response would be that God gave the Nephite's the words to write which he knew would eventually be those recorded in the King James Version. But that becomes problematic when the Book of Mormon account specifically states that Nephi got the plates containing Isaiah from Laban before they left Jerusalem.

Now were these plates from Laban also written in a "reformed Egyptian"? For me, they would have most likely been written in Hebrew. But those who came here recorded their accounts in the reformed Egyptian.

Here are some other things to consider. First, the translation process didn't consist entirely of a seer stone in a hat. In the beginning, Joseph used a Urim & Thummin, then the seer stone, ending with no device at all! Toward the end it is reported the Joseph dictated the text while not even looking at the plates.

There are so many reasons NOT to believe in the message contained in the Book of Mormon. Yet I never set out to prove the history true. I first set out to prove the message true and it was proven to me beyond any doubt. Frankly, I have had two encounters with the Three Nephites. Along with this, I have had specific passages and promises proven to me to be true. Because of this I have no reason to prove the history true when the message has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt.

Do I have an explanation for the Isaiah wording which works for me? Sure! Is it enough for all people, or course not. Did the Isaiah issue ever bother me? No, because due to the context which the Book of Mormon introduced the Isaiah text, the verses in Isaiah began to make far more sense. Hope this helps! :P

Link to comment

Thunderfire,

A fascinating response!

I agree that, hypothetically, if the plates containing Isaiah existed ca. 600 BC, one would expect them to have been written in Hebrew. Of course, I can't think of any good reason why the gold plates would not also be written in Hebrew, but that's another issue. In any case, from what I understand (and correct me if I'm mistaken), the standard view is that the entirety of the Book of Mormon on the gold plates was written in Reformed Egyptian. This would mean that the quotations from Isaiah would be translations of Hebrew into Reformed Egyptian.

Regarding Joseph's translation method, if I recall the accounts appear to indicate that Joseph used the "Urim & Thummim" to translate the "Book of Lehi," but the stone in his hat to translate most or all of the Book of Mormon. In fact, apparently Joseph rarely if ever looked at the plates when he was translating them. Either way, the translation method supposedly was one in which Joseph received the very English words of the translation visibly presented before his eyes. This creates a huge problem for the BOM when we realize that it is clearly dependent on the KJV for its English translation of the biblical passages.

Obviously, I have little or nothing to say--beyond the obvious and potentially offensive, though I don't wish to offend--regarding your experiences that you believe confirm the truth of the BOM. Frankly, I don't view such experiences as normal or sound means of coming to know what is or is not Scripture. And yes, I take the same view whether the Scripture in question is the BOM or the Bible, and regardless of whose experience it is. If my wife told me she now knew that Leviticus was Scripture because she had a vision in which Moses' brother Aaron appeared to her in full high-priestly regalia, I would not believe her, even though I view Leviticus as Scripture and consider my wife to be a truthful person. This is most decidedly not because I think God is limited in what he can do, but because I think there are some things that God is far less likely to do than other things. Ultimately my judgment in such matters is based on what I perceive to be the teaching and revelatory patterns of the Bible.

In any case, not having had such experiences myself, I must use what I have to decide what to think about the Book of Mormon. And what I have leads me to conclude that it is not what it purports to be.

Hello Rob,

You are correct. It makes no sense whatsoever and I find it extremely difficult to defend. Logically, the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon SHOULD resemble that of the Dead Sea Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts and NOT the King James Version. The only logical response would be that God gave the Nephite's the words to write which he knew would eventually be those recorded in the King James Version. But that becomes problematic when the Book of Mormon account specifically states that Nephi got the plates containing Isaiah from Laban before they left Jerusalem.

Now were these plates from Laban also written in a "reformed Egyptian"? For me, they would have most likely been written in Hebrew. But those who came here recorded their accounts in the reformed Egyptian.

Here are some other things to consider. First, the translation process didn't consist entirely of a seer stone in a hat. In the beginning, Joseph used a Urim & Thummin, then the seer stone, ending with no device at all! Toward the end it is reported the Joseph dictated the text while not even looking at the plates.

There are so many reasons NOT to believe in the message contained in the Book of Mormon. Yet I never set out to prove the history true. I first set out to prove the message true and it was proven to me beyond any doubt. Frankly, I have had two encounters with the Three Nephites. Along with this, I have had specific passages and promises proven to me to be true. Because of this I have no reason to prove the history true when the message has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt.

Do I have an explanation for the Isaiah wording which works for me? Sure! Is it enough for all people, or course not. Did the Isaiah issue ever bother me? No, because due to the context which the Book of Mormon introduced the Isaiah text, the verses in Isaiah began to make far more sense. Hope this helps! :P

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

This is the question I should be asking -- that I am asking -- about Bill's supposed criticisms of my argument. They seem to have nothing to do with the issue I raised here.

And Bill, you wrote:

Perhaps, but your point, whatever it is, seems to be irrelevant to the subject of this thread. But then, perhaps I don't understand your point.

The issue that I raised in this thread is the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV. This would not be a problem if the Book of Mormon purported to be simply a nineteenth-century writing. It does not. It purports to be a nineteenth-century translation of a fifth-century Reformed Egyptian writing. The translation, we are told, was produced in a supernatural way, by the words of the Reformed Egyptian text and a corresponding English translation appearing to Joseph as he stared at a stone inside his hat, which he then dictated to a scribe. Given this reported translation method, it does not make sense for the biblical quotations in the BOM to be dependent on the KJV. To be precise, the biblical quotations in the BOM are supposedly English translations of Reformed Egyptian quotations of the Bible, which in turn were translations of the Hebrew text. Thus, the BOM quotations from the Bible are supposed to be translations of translations, conveyed to Joseph Smith by a method that excluded the use of the KJV.

The NT quotes the OT; sometimes the wording of these quotations looks like a fairly literal translation in Greek of the Hebrew text, but often the wording of the quotations does not correspond to a literal translation of the Hebrew into Greek but instead uses a somewhat different wording, often closely following the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the OT in widespread use by Jews in the first century. Since the NT writings claim to be first-century writings, there is simply no problem here comparable to the problem I am raising concerning the BOM. They claim to quote the OT writings, but they don't claim to be providing a literal, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. They don't say anything about the nature of their quotations that would preclude them using the LXX. There's nothing here of relevance to the issue I am raising about the dependence of the BOM on the KJV.

Suppose a NT writing purported to quote extensively from an earlier Egyptian version of Genesis otherwise unknown to us. If it quoted, say, all of Genesis 2, and its quotation of Genesis 2 corresponded to the LXX in 99% of its wording, we would know that its claim to be quoting from an Egyptian Genesis was false. And that would be a big problem. Of course, this is just a make-believe scenario; nothing of the sort is the case. But something very much like it is what we find with the BOM.

An analogy does not have to be perfect in oder to be significant. If God can inspire Matthew to not correct a theologically significant translation error when quoting Isaiah, why would God have to inspire JS to correct theologically insignificant translation errors when quoting Isaiah? The NT authors get to inaccurately quote/translate the Hebrew Bible and still be inspired, but JS does not. I get it.

Link to comment

Bill,

You wrote:

An analogy does not have to be perfect in oder to be significant. If God can inspire Matthew to not correct a theologically significant translation error when quoting Isaiah, why would God have to inspire JS to correct theologically insignificant translation errors when quoting Isaiah? The NT authors get to inaccurately quote/translate the Hebrew Bible and still be inspired, but JS does not. I get it.

I've already explained why your analogy is not merely imperfect but useless. JS was supposedly not quoting the KJV of Isaiah; he was translating the BOM quoting an earlier version of Isaiah in a different language. The NT authors were quoting directly from texts naturally known to them, either from memory or from scrolls in front of them. The issue is not inaccuracy; the issue is authenticity.

Link to comment

I've already explained why your analogy is not merely imperfect but useless. JS was supposedly not quoting the KJV of Isaiah; he was translating the BOM quoting an earlier version of Isaiah in a different language. The NT authors were quoting directly from texts naturally known to them, either from memory or from scrolls in front of them. The issue is not inaccuracy; the issue is authenticity.

Keep in mind Rob, we don't believe for a second that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon. We believe that it is an inspried translation of an abridged record. So it would be the writer at the time, or the abridger who quoted Isaiah off the plates of brass or off the copy of Deutro-Isaiah that arrived by European Swallow carried coconut :P . We believe that Joseph Smith was unsuited to the task of translation and was not as well educated as any of the members of this board (well, maybe better than me).

The eyewitness said that no other books were used. They never changed their statements, nor did they ever recant their testimonies of the plates. So your assertion, that the fact that this section of Mosiah matches up with Isaiah is simply faith affirming, not faith disarming for me. It shows the KJV to be an inspired translation of the Bible.

I have no reason to doubt the account that the KJV was not used. I have no reason to doubt that a hick farmboy would be unable to create such a book out of his own wild imaginations. There are many things in the book that were denouced as false at the time, only to have them found to be true. There is too much positive evidence to just dismiss it out of hand for any reason.

Link to comment

In any case, from what I understand (and correct me if I'm mistaken), the standard view is that the entirety of the Book of Mormon on the gold plates was written in Reformed Egyptian. This would mean that the quotations from Isaiah would be translations of Hebrew into Reformed Egyptian.

Hello Rob!

This is not entirely accurate. We need to remember that the Book of Mormon is an "abridgment". Meaning, we are told there were THOUSANDS of plates which Mormon used to write the account from those words which were most pleasing to him or what we could say was the Spirits guidance regarding what God wanted "us" to have as the recipients of the book. So this is how his plates would be written in the "reformed Egyptian". This was his language as the writer of the abridgment. So the Isaiah plates could have been written in Hebrew and through the power of God, Mormon could read a languge he did not know and write it in his own language.

When we think in these terms, it begins to make more logical sense...

Either way, the translation method supposedly was one in which Joseph received the very English words of the translation visibly presented before his eyes. This creates a huge problem for the BOM when we realize that it is clearly dependent on the KJV for its English translation of the biblical passages.

I think we need to look at it this way. It is not logical to think that the words Joseph received would be "seen" in reformed Egyptian. This is a language he did not know. So how could he even read it? For him, the words had to come in English because this was the language of Joseph Smith. Because of this something would need to have happened:

1) God would have needed to first instruct Joseph in how to read the reformed Egyptian language.

2) Or, the words on the plates would need to somehow magically transform into English.

3) Or God would have given him what he needed to write regardless of physically "seeing" the plates or having the need for any device.

When we look at the translation process, the third option seems to show the most promise. We can see how Joseph's faith (as would ours) needed to grow. First a heavenly device showing the importance of the work (Urim and Thummin). Then through disobedience the need for something to replace it. Finally reaching the pinnacle of faith where we realize that we need nothing except the power of God to fulfill what God has for us to accomplish.

Then look at how each of us would approach such a task! Would a prophet in our day write in the King James English or the language which was familiar to us? For that matter, God could speak any language he wants! But he chooses to speak to the messenger in their own language or the language of those who will receive the message. Just as the Book of Mormon writers read and wrote (and probably spoke) in the refomed Egyptian, Joseph spoke and read in the King James English. In this we should see continuity in how our languages are not a barrier to God and that his message can transcend multiple languages and translations!

Obviously, I have little or nothing to say--beyond the obvious and potentially offensive, though I don't wish to offend--regarding your experiences that you believe confirm the truth of the BOM. Frankly, I don't view such experiences as normal or sound means of coming to know what is or is not Scripture.

No offense taken. I merely offered that as why I do not question the books

Link to comment
Your understanding of the two kinds of god is not the only possible concept. The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is the god I followed from my youth. But He was always a lesser "God" than the concept I could formulate on my own.

No.

He was not.

The notion that the true God would be "lesser" than a purely mental construct of your own is utterly hubristic.

Come the day that you are privileged to stand in His glorious presence, the memory that you once thought He could ever be "lesser" than the product of your vainglorious imaginings will be shown to you in its utter folly as being at the same time absurdly risible and deeply embarrassing.

I took two classes in philosophy when I was first back off my mission. The Metaphysics class began by looking at classical arguments for and against the existence of God. The Ontological argument, which you elsewhere described yourself as impressed with, impressed me as nothing more than an attempt to manipulate words in order to define God into existence. The Cosmological argument, upon which you rely -- the argument that all things have a cause, and therefore there must be some uncaused "First Cause," which is then labelled as God -- I found perplexing.

My perplexity was settled when I realised that the God being spoken of was not the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who reveals Himself to prophets, but the abstract "God of the philosophers."

The latter is the only "God" that my education has "contaminated" me with.

This concept grew slowly over the decades, until almost at once, like a bursting flower from a swollen bud, my theology came upon me independent of any other theology. That mine shares many similarities with other theologies is explained by the Original Cause of all theologies. There really is a singular, overarching true theology. But it is infinite and not comprehensible by finite minds such as ours. We can entertain the concept of infinity, but we cannot realize the actuality of it: only "God", the only infinite Existence, can comprehend infinity, because "God" IS Infinity.

A meaningless platitude. But then, that's the only way to describe imaginary constructs.

Your straw man is the repeated comparison between the "God" of "Abraham et al." and the so-called God of the Absolutes. There is no such being as the latter; and the former can only be a glorified creation of "God", not the Source of Existence in the First Place.

He's the source of your existence; the light and the life of men, and the only source you can look to for eternal life. If you look beyond the mark, supposing that Christ, the Lord omnipotent, is somehow "lesser," then I promise you that your totally imaginary "first cause" won't help you. Your idol, made not of stone but of words, has no power.

The full truth of "God" is not comprehensible to finite minds. Yet each sapient being is directly connected to "God", ergo has a potential realization of all truth as "God" wills. It does not follow that "God" does not possess all the characteristics that we see manifested in the world within ourselves and surrounding each of us. These characteristics can have no other Source BUT "God". There is no "ex nihilo": since Existence is not arguable: so everything must derive from the Necessary Cause - the only Cause that is not caused. It is both fecund creation and Void. Not at the same "time", but simply NOW: both states existing, inclusive of all opposites and conundrums and illogical seeming. Only Infinity can comprehend Existence in its complete, infinitely expanding state of NOW.

There is nothing unaware of uncaring about it. If "God" were to be this puny "God of Absolutes" that your education has contaminated you with, then you would transcend "God" himself, being caring, aware and with purpose, where "God" is not. That is touching on the ultimate logical fallacy....

You really are completely impressed with your own brilliance, aren't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Thunderfire,

I really appreciate the manner of your response. I hope we can continue the discussion in this cordial and frank a fashion.

You wrote:

This is not entirely accurate. We need to remember that the Book of Mormon is an "abridgment". Meaning, we are told there were THOUSANDS of plates which Mormon used to write the account from those words which were most pleasing to him or what we could say was the Spirits guidance regarding what God wanted "us" to have as the recipients of the book. So this is how his plates would be written in the "reformed Egyptian". This was his language as the writer of the abridgment. So the Isaiah plates could have been written in Hebrew and through the power of God, Mormon could read a languge he did not know and write it in his own language.

When we think in these terms, it begins to make more logical sense...

Well, I don't think we're disagreeing on what the BOM claims in this regard. The Isaiah plates would have been written in Hebrew, most likely, and the BOM in Reformed Egyptian. You seem to agree with me that this is the scenario that the BOM presents. If this is correct, then, when the BOM quotes Isaiah, it quotes it in Reformed Egyptian. (How this would have happened is beyond my concern here; it doesn't matter to me if Mormon, hypothetically, knew both languages naturally or was inspired to read Hebrew despite not knowing it.) The bottom line is that the gold plates, when quoting Isaiah, would be giving a translation of the Hebrew. Then Joseph Smith would be giving a translation of the Reformed Egyptian--and thus, a translation of a translation.

You wrote:

I think we need to look at it this way. It is not logical to think that the words Joseph received would be "seen" in reformed Egyptian. This is a language he did not know. So how could he even read it? For him, the words had to come in English because this was the language of Joseph Smith.

No argument there, although some of the accounts tell us that Joseph "saw" both Reformed Egyptian characters and a corresponding English translation. (I'm merely reporting, not agreeing, with this claim!)

You wrote:

Because of this something would need to have happened:

1) God would have needed to first instruct Joseph in how to read the reformed Egyptian language.

2) Or, the words on the plates would need to somehow magically transform into English.

3) Or God would have given him what he needed to write regardless of physically "seeing" the plates or having the need for any device.

When we look at the translation process, the third option seems to show the most promise. We can see how Joseph's faith (as would ours) needed to grow. First a heavenly device showing the importance of the work (Urim and Thummin). Then through disobedience the need for something to replace it. Finally reaching the pinnacle of faith where we realize that we need nothing except the power of God to fulfill what God has for us to accomplish.

My concern is not what implements or devices Joseph used. Any of these methods would be consistent with a so-called "tight control" understanding of what the translation process was supposed to be.

You wrote:

Then look at how each of us would approach such a task! Would a prophet in our day write in the King James English or the language which was familiar to us? For that matter, God could speak any language he wants! But he chooses to speak to the messenger in their own language or the language of those who will receive the message. Just as the Book of Mormon writers read and wrote (and probably spoke) in the refomed Egyptian, Joseph spoke and read in the King James English. In this we should see continuity in how our languages are not a barrier to God and that his message can transcend multiple languages and translations!

I'm not challenging the Book of Mormon for using Elizabethan English. The issue here is not the style of the English in the BOM. The issue is its specific literary dependence on the KJV. Yes, God can speak any language he wants, but the issue here is what did Joseph Smith claim God was doing in the translation process. The evidence shows that Joseph claimed that God revealed the text of the BOM to him in a way that made the KJV extraneous.

In Isaiah 53, if God had wanted to reveal to Joseph the passage using Elizabethan English, he could have done so but in a way that showed independence from the KJV itself. For example, instead of using the exact wording of the KJV in Mosiah 14:11 (=Isaiah 53:11), the supernaturally inspired translation might have included the word "light" (which the Hebrew text on which the KJV was based lacked) and would presumably have made other wording choices independent of the KJV. Instead of reading:

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied" (Isa 53:11 KJV = Mosiah 14:12)

Mosiah 14:11 might have read something like this:

"In the travail of his soul he shall see light and shall be filled."

It just doesn't make sense that God would stick so closely to the KJV text in what is supposedly an independent translation of a text that had no relationship to the KJV. And if God were to choose for whatever reason to use the KJV, you would think that he would simply stick to the KJV wording consistently except where it was flat wrong regarding something of significance. But that isn't what we see in the BOM quotations from Isaiah. The BOM quotations from Isaiah have numerous insignificant variations from the KJV while retaining a large number of errors in the KJV. (We haven't gotten to those yet; they should probably be reserved for a new thread.)

You wrote:

No offense taken. I merely offered that as why I do not question the books
Link to comment

This has been an interesting discussion. I did want to comment briefly on the idea that the JS himself did not use a KJV of the Bible in translating the BOM but instead a supernatural entity used the KJV and presumably fed JS direct quotations from the Bible. I understand the reasoning behind such a hypothesis it is an attempt to reconcile witness statements of JS not using any written sources when translating the BOM with the rock solid textual evidence a KJV of the bible was used in producing parts of the BOM. The problem with the above hypothesis is then we have to make the supernatural entity responsible for how the KJV was used. For example italics in the KJV were apparently viewed with suspicion 40% of the italicized words present in the KJV of Isaiah are absent from the BOM quoting of Isaiah this is striking when compared to the 3.6% overall occurrence of italicized words in KJV Isaiah. Italicized words were removed from the BOM Isaiah at a far higher rate than would be expected given how frequently they occur in the KJV Isaiah.

Ref:

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html#introduction

When the KJV translators had to add words or phrases to produce a readable translation but those words were not found in the original language they would add them but italicize them.

These are word/phrases that are needed in order to produce a readable translation. Adding words or phrases not present in the original language to produce readable English is unavoidable. And viewing these words as somehow suspect is unwarranted. If the KJV Isaiah found in the BOM is a result of a supernatural translator feeding JS direct quotations from the KJV why was this supernatural translator incorrectly suspicious of italicized words?

The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible also shows this same pattern of reacting to italicized words. And this project we can place squarely at the feet of JS. Given this observation it starts becoming very difficult to argue that some supernatural translator who must be well aware that adding in words to make readable English is unavoidable is responsible for the focus on changing italicized words instead of JS. But if JS is responsible for the focus on modifying italicized words he must know what words are italicized in the KJV. This necessarily places a copy of the relevant text of the KJV squarely in his hands during the translation process. Unless of course JS simply memorized large chunks of the KJV right down to the location of italicized words.

What then are we to do with the witness testimony which specifically claimed no written sources were present? Well the witness testimony used is Emma Smith's claim that JS did not read from or use a manuscript or document. While Emma did serve for a time as Josephs scribe this was brief and those portions of the BOM transcribed by Emma do not include the large quotations from the KJV. Oliver Cowdery was the primary scribe for most of the BOM and as far as I know there is no similar Emma like statement from him.

I would like to add even if eyewitness testimony directly contradicted the textual evidence not all evidence is created equal. Empirical quantifiable evidence trumps witness testimony. If I am a detective investigating a crime and the primary suspect's wife claims he was with her all evening. But DNA and fingerprint evidence puts him at the location of the crime. Empirical quantifiable forensic evidence trumps witness testimony. We have empirical quantifiable textual evidence linking the BOM with the KJV text. It might be possible to construct convoluted ad hoc scenarios to get a KJV somewhere in the loop but not in the hands of JS but it is not necessarily easy as I argue above.

Best,

Uncertain

Link to comment
The Isaiah plates would have been written in Hebrew, most likely, and the BOM in Reformed Egyptian. ... Reformed Egyptian. (How this would have happened is beyond my concern here; it doesn't matter to me if Mormon, hypothetically, knew both languages naturally or was inspired to read Hebrew despite not knowing it.) ... Reformed Egyptian--and thus, a translation of a translation.

Please learn this fact: There is no "Reformed Egyptian" language. The "reformed Egyptian to which Moroni referred were nothing more than characters (i.e., letters); see your own message below. There was no need to translate into any form of Egyptian because that was not the language the Book of Mormon prophets used to record their sacred history.

some of the accounts tell us that Joseph "saw" both Reformed Egyptian characters and a corresponding English translation. (I'm merely reporting, not agreeing, with this claim!)[My emphasis]

Good, because that's not what happened at all.

If anything, Joseph saw an English transliteration of proper names, there is nothing to require that we believe he saw a full English translation.

Lehi

Link to comment

Rob--I've enjoyed reading your responses and while I often disagree with you, you seem to provide a good source for discussion. I'd like to join this conversation.

In Isaiah 53, if God had wanted to reveal to Joseph the passage using Elizabethan English, he could have done so but in a way that showed independence from the KJV itself. For example, instead of using the exact wording of the KJV in Mosiah 14:11 (=Isaiah 53:11), the supernaturally inspired translation might have included the word "light" (which the Hebrew text on which the KJV was based lacked) and would presumably have made other wording choices independent of the KJV. ...

It just doesn't make sense that God would stick so closely to the KJV text in what is supposedly an independent translation of a text that had no relationship to the KJV. And if God were to choose for whatever reason to use the KJV, you would think that he would simply stick to the KJV wording consistently except where it was flat wrong regarding something of significance. But that isn't what we see in the BOM quotations from Isaiah. The BOM quotations from Isaiah have numerous insignificant variations from the KJV while retaining a large number of errors in the KJV. (We haven't gotten to those yet; they should probably be reserved for a new thread.)

This appears to me to be the crux of the matter. You presume that God would not have provided Joseph with a translation that was almost exactly the same as the KJV--rather that (and I'm assuming here) he would have done what you would have done. What is the basis for your presumption?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...