Brian Hales latest BOM presentation -- dictation vs loose translation

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

First, it is not a divine translation.  God has humans do his translations.  They are always human.

I'm not sure I buy that presupposition. We don't have divine translations in the Bible. So the only examples we have are Joseph and then apparenlty a few figures in the Book of Mormon such as Mosiah. However all of them involve the Spectacles and so don't really tell us much about how the Spectacles work. The assumption that the Spectacles (or seer stone) function as a communication device between two humans functioning like a telegraph seems questionable to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't see the argument for it.

In any case, if the translation is the work of a man then that makes it that much weirder to inject NT KJV quotations or paraphrases into the earlier text. I confess that just doesn't seem the strategy of a conscious human translator. I think having it function unconsciously in some fashion would better explain the odditites of the text from my perspective.

55 minutes ago, champatsch said:

You know the wherefore ~ therefore switch, and the whoso ~ whosoever switch? The latter is noticeable between 3n08 and 3n09, where whoso starts to be used much more heavily.

That's interesting and does suggest things along the lines I outlined. I don't think we know when the transition from Spectacles to seer stone took place. Some suggest it was immediately after the lost 116 pages but it's pretty ambiguous IMO. I wish we had the 116 pages as if we were going to see differences it's from the early pages of Lehi to the latter texts we'd expect to see it most pronounced.

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

focusing on a small subset of biblical quoting in the Book of Mormon is a recipe for coming to faulty conclusions

• there are sections where italics clearly plays a role in textual changes; there are sections where italics plays hardly any role
• because less than one-quarter of the changes are related to italics, much more is going on than mere italics modification
• the complexity of the paraphrastic verse with functional shift in wherefore (2n0951) is an example of the need to posit JS preparing carefully in advance of the dictation, if the goal is to make him the editor of biblical quotation in the Book of Mormon

there are many phrases (more than 30) where the italicized word or phrase is left unchanged but there is another immediate difference

IMO this strongly suggests that the person/method injecting the KJV into the text to translate an underlying passage couldn't speak the undelrying language. I know some have suggested it's following a different underlying Hebrew text, but that just seems difficult to accept given the nature of the changes. You then also have the problem of the deutero-Isaiah passages along with certain other extended passages. While I think the proto-text later redacted and edited in the exile explains all that, that then suggests a problem with the underlying text in the Book of Mormon translation. That is the original text on the plates must vary from the final translation and the person doing the final translation in terms of textual fidelity to the KJV doesn't know the underlying plates. In other words for extended translations of Isaiah not including pesher like expansions have errors due to the process itself and ignorance of the original text. Whether by Joseph Smith or some intermediate translator/process.

Again while I'm skeptical we must assume human conscious methods, I think we're left with a conscious decision at some point by someone to follow the KJV for both quoted text but also to translate unique text. Why isn't clear. The best theory is something like footnotes. If so, then that's a very compelling argument for it not being in the 19th century since footnotes were well known then. However if the person is following the KJV and not necessarily correcting the KJV to fit the underlying BoM text then there's a strong class of errors. Those either come via Joseph Smith telling us something about the U&T process, the scribe, or the original translator/process. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

IMO this strongly suggests that the person/method injecting the KJV into the text to translate an underlying passage couldn't speak the undelrying language.

I'm skeptical of being able to approach certainty in this area.  I see the hand of editors exploring alternative ways of expression and being creative in the editing process, much like anyone does who acts as an editor when writing:  editing, re-editing, reverting, restructuring, etc.

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I'm skeptical of being able to approach certainty in this area.  I see the hand of editors exploring alternative ways of expression and being creative in the editing process, much like anyone does who acts as an editor when writing:  editing, re-editing, reverting, restructuring, etc.

Well I'm skeptical of certainty in any of these areas without considerably new empirical data. 

I do think though it important to ask the question of the nature of changes relative to the KJV for extended quotations. Critics certainly have raised this issue for the theory of an unconscious writing Joseph, a copying Joseph and so forth. I think, for instance, the theory that Joseph was consulting a KJV text during the translation is pretty hard to reconcile to the evidence of errors. I think that it also makes problematic the idea of having the text written out and hidden. Not impossible, but again I think looking at the types of errors would tell us something, even if it doesn't give us certainty.

Christopher Smith has an interesting argument regarding KJV quotations and Joseph Smith. He looks at the original texts of D&C passages that refer to or paraphrase KJV passages and finds Joseph kind of problematic there. That undermines (IMO) the idea of Joseph with an edetic memory quoting the KJV at will. While it doesn't invalidate the claim of having a KJV present, that seems a problematic claim. You note in the comments there that the 1611 KJV seems followed to a degree, which is itself interesting since I don't believe Joseph had a copy of that. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I should add that I don't think Chris Smith's intent was to show Joseph not capable of memorizing or being as fluent in the texts, but it seems to require that as a conclusion.

Edited August 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

• there are sections where italics clearly plays a role in textual changes; there are sections where italics plays hardly any role
• because less than one-quarter of the changes are related to italics, much more is going on than mere italics modification
• the complexity of the paraphrastic verse with functional shift in wherefore (2n0951) is an example of the need to posit JS preparing carefully in advance of the dictation, if the goal is to make him the editor of biblical quotation in the Book of Mormon

there are many phrases (more than 30) where the italicized word or phrase is left unchanged 

All of this is true. That doesn't mean that there weren't changes to italicized words. They were not consistent, but they are sufficient in number to indicate that the translator paid some attention to them. The next problem is what happened after attention was paid. There was often an attempt at removal, and that required the insertion of new words--or sometimes incomplete thoughts--or places where the sense of the scripture was altered.

It is not a dismissal of the issue to indicate that the changes didn't happen all of the time. We are still required to deal with what happened when it did occur. Whoever made the changes did so without consultation of the original languages, and often without understanding the English meaning of the larger passages in which the changes were made. Even if we accept that Joseph didn't do that, we have to find some way in which some translator did, and did not make appropriate corrections. 

[champatsch]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Christopher Smith has an interesting argument regarding KJV quotations and Joseph Smith. He looks at the original texts of D&C passages that refer to or paraphrase KJV passages and finds Joseph kind of problematic there. That undermines (IMO) the idea of Joseph with an edetic memory quoting the KJV at will. While it doesn't invalidate the claim of having a KJV present, that seems a problematic claim. You note in the comments there that the 1611 KJV seems followed to a degree, which is itself interesting since I don't believe Joseph had a copy of that. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I should add that I don't think Chris Smith's intent was to show Joseph not capable of memorizing or being as fluent in the texts, but it seems to require that as a conclusion.

Yes, just another fanciful theory based on insufficient research. C. Smith didn't consult Skousen's work on the manuscripts or any of his relevant statements. He didn't take the critical text and do a phrase by phrase comparison, noting italics changed, italics not changed, other constituent changes.

Here's what serious work looks like:

 

Crystal-clear visual imagery is extremely unlikely because it's probabilistically low for any given individual and it doesn't ultimately work textually.

Having a King James Bible present isn't supported by any dictation witness, and it would have had to be a carefully prepared Bible, not an unmarked Bible.

Edited August 26, 2019 by champatsch

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Yes, just another fanciful theory based on insufficient research. C. Smith didn't consult Skousen's work on the manuscripts or any of his relevant statements. He didn't take the critical text and do a phrase by phrase comparison, noting italics changed, italics not changed, other constituent changes.

Right, but I think what he showed with the D&C is that Joseph simply *didn't* consult a KJV and couldn't keep it in memory. I fully agree that's not what he was arguing for and that his aims failed. However if Joseph *could* memorize the way some claim, then those D&C passages wouldn't have the errors or the need to fill in KJV text later. Chris Smith's theory was that this was true on the Book of Mormon but you demonstrated that was false since the text he thought was missing was actually extanct.

[champatsch]

22 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

• there are sections where italics clearly plays a role in textual changes; there are sections where italics plays hardly any role
• because less than one-quarter of the changes are related to italics, much more is going on than mere italics modification
• the complexity of the paraphrastic verse with functional shift in wherefore (2n0951) is an example of the need to posit JS preparing carefully in advance of the dictation, if the goal is to make him the editor of biblical quotation in the Book of Mormon

there are many phrases (more than 30) where the italicized word or phrase is left unchanged 

All of this is true.

 

This was left out, and it bears repeating:

Quote

there are many phrases (more than 30) where the italicized word or phrase is left unchanged but there is another immediate difference

some subconscious syntactic evidence argues against JS being responsible for altering biblical quotations

• unlikely personal relative pronoun changes (against JS's native preference),  that  →  which:

he that → they which (Isa 50:9; 2n0709)
man that → man which (Isa 51:12; 2n0812)
every one that → every one which (Isa 2:12; 2n1212)

• unlikely personal relative pronoun choices (against JS's native preference),  ø  →  which:

man ø → man which (Isa 29:8; 2n2703; twice in the same verse)
the poor in spirit ø → the poor in spirit which (Matt 5:3; 3n1203)
ø → he which ([Mic 4:3]; 3n2019; nonbiblical sentence)
ø → people which ([Mic 5:8]; 3n2112; nonbiblical phrase; jsLetters have "people that")

• unlikely future auxiliary switch (against JS's native preference)

will → shall (Isa 52:12; 3n2042)

there are many changes (dozens) that show intrusive and careful editing (e.g. 2n1214, 2n1216, 2n1309, 2n1311, etc.)

positing JS as the modifier of biblical quotations requires a creative explanation for the surprising Septuagint phrase "upon all the ships of the sea" (2n1216)

 

Many analysts, including the above quoted, conspicuously ignore strong evidence and focus on weak or irrelevant evidence when arguing against an opposing view. It's important to focus on strong evidence.

That was a problem with Scott Gordon's presentation, addressing CES Letter question 1, and it is a serious, repeated flaw in my interlocutor's approach. There is just too much neglect and twisting of evidence.

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See my “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian,” FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (Provo: FARMS, 1985); 73pp; in BYU Library, Americana Collection, BX 8608 .A1a no.6012a  (Quarto).  A version was available online at the Maxwell Institute, but no longer, as they make a transition to BYU Library.  I tried hard to make plenty of examples of Hieratic available.  Translation of such a small document is not a piece of cake, Steve.  Better men than me have tried. 

See also my “Chiasmus in Ancient Egyptian & in the So-called ‘Anthon Transcript’,” Scribd.org, June 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/352354579/Chiasmus-in-Ancient-Egyptian-in-the-So-called-Anthon-Transcript . 

I do not ever seem to have any luck at Scribd org. My 30 day trail was used long ago.

So maybe instead of providing any meaning for those character you ( or others) say are Hieratic, can you briefly explain why they are thought to be Hieratic and which ones if possible?

 

Thanks

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I do not ever seem to have any luck at Scribd org. My 30 day trail was used long ago.

So maybe instead of providing any meaning for those character you ( or others) say are Hieratic, can you briefly explain why they are thought to be Hieratic and which ones if possible?............

Sorry.  I try to make some helpful research available.  The thing is that nothing speaks louder than an actual illustration of the hundreds of similarities, but that has to be done systematically, and that cannot be done here.  Here is a page of 16th century BC Hieratic.

Here is a set of developmental comparisons of Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic Egyptian:

                    

[CA Steve]

Robert,

 

Forgive me for being persistent here, but I hope you can see how your last response does not illustrate what I am asking.

Let's start here. Maybe you can take a copy of the 'charactors' document and highlight somehow those symbols that are Hieratic. That might be a good place to start for those of us who are less informed. If you get motivated maybe you could then highlight those same characters in a graph like you provided above?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I buy that presupposition. We don't have divine translations in the Bible. So the only examples we have are Joseph and then apparenlty a few figures in the Book of Mormon such as Mosiah.

Even when we have the biblical Urim & Thummim used by the Israelite HP, or the Ur & Tm used by the Egyptian HP of Heliopolis, it is always a human receptor.  The result is always a human version of the transmission.  So too with Mosiah and others using the Nephite interpreters.  The reception is always according to human language and understanding (2 Ne 31:3, D&C 1:24).  The rule is fundamental.

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

However all of them involve the Spectacles and so don't really tell us much about how the Spectacles work. The assumption that the Spectacles (or seer stone) function as a communication device between two humans functioning like a telegraph seems questionable to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't see the argument for it........

I don't think we know when the transition from Spectacles to seer stone took place. Some suggest it was immediately after the lost 116 pages but it's pretty ambiguous IMO. I wish we had the 116 pages as if we were going to see differences it's from the early pages of Lehi to the latter texts we'd expect to see it most pronounced.

We must not begin wrangling over whether it makes a difference when using an iPhone and then switiching to an Android.  That is not the point at all.  The character of the transmission remains the same.  We are not talking about Scotty beaming up Captain Kirk.

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

In any case, if the translation is the work of a man then that makes it that much weirder to inject NT KJV quotations or paraphrases into the earlier text. I confess that just doesn't seem the strategy of a conscious human translator. I think having it function unconsciously in some fashion would better explain the odditites of the text from my perspective.

Of course, and that is the way scholarly translators used to do it.  Nowadays they have abandoned the archaic style, so it seems more acceptable.  However, I see no oddities.

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...................................... pesher like expansions have errors due to the process itself and ignorance of the original text. Whether by Joseph Smith or some intermediate translator/process.

........ there's a strong class of errors. Those either come via Joseph Smith telling us something about the U&T process, the scribe, or the original translator/process. 

Plenty of room for deep research on such matters.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even when we have the biblical Urim & Thummim used by the Israelite HP, or the Ur & Tm used by the Egyptian HP of Heliopolis, it is always a human receptor.  The result is always a human version of the transmission.  So too with Mosiah and others using the Nephite interpreters.  The reception is always according to human language and understanding (2 Ne 31:3, D&C 1:24).  The rule is fundamental.

But that begs the question of the methodology providing the translation to Mosiah or Joseph Smith. While a human is definitely involved it's not at all clear what the underlying process is.

That's really my only point. I think we err assuming the process was a normal translation even if done behind the scenes.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

........Forgive me for being persistent here, but I hope you can see how your last response does not illustrate what I am asking.

Let's start here. Maybe you can take a copy of the 'charactors' document and highlight somehow those symbols that are Hieratic. That might be a good place to start for those of us who are less informed. If you get motivated maybe you could then highlight those same characters in a graph like you provided above?

I see that you are determined to make we work.  Virtually all the characters in the Caractors Document (note the spelling of "Caractors," which is used deliberately of that particular document) can be seen as cursive Egyptian.  It is not a question of which, but only a translation question.  How are the characters to be translated.  Since you haven't looked at the Chiastic form of the Caractors Document (at Scribd), you will not understand the nature of the parallel phrases, and why they must represent a controlling feature for any decipherment.  I would put it here for you, but this board doesn't allow that amount of data.

Suffice to say, that of all the Hieratic which can be reasonably translated, none of it fits the BofM as we know it in English.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that begs the question of the methodology providing the translation to Mosiah or Joseph Smith. While a human is definitely involved it's not at all clear what the underlying process is.

That's really my only point. I think we err assuming the process was a normal translation even if done behind the scenes.

In other words, the translation is not simply given to any one at any time.  The actual, immediate translator (not Joseph Smith for the BofM) clearly participates fully in the process at an unconscious level -- perhaps a kind of mental feedback loop in which ideas and concepts get put into the local cultural lingo.  Joseph's device merely receives the already extant "translation" by a 16th century human.  Doesn't matter which device.  Joseph gets the text, and reads it off to his scribes, with some reasonably human mistakes along the way by both scribe and Joseph.  We call it "texting" today.  In no case are we talking about scholarly translation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that begs the question...

I don't see an instance of circular reasoning here. Care to explain?

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't see an instance of circular reasoning here. Care to explain?

Sorry, my bad, misusing my fallacies. However most people these days use "begs the question" both for the formal fallacy of that name as well as "raise the question" often with the connotation of dodging it. But you're right I should have been more careful.

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In other words, the translation is not simply given to any one at any time.  The actual, immediate translator (not Joseph Smith for the BofM) clearly participates fully in the process at an unconscious level -- perhaps a kind of mental feedback loop in which ideas and concepts get put into the local cultural lingo.  Joseph's device merely receives the already extant "translation" by a 16th century human.  Doesn't matter which device.  Joseph gets the text, and reads it off to his scribes, with some reasonably human mistakes along the way by both scribe and Joseph.  We call it "texting" today.  In no case are we talking about scholarly translation.

Yeah, I guess all I'm saying is that while I understand why some see that as the process I'm a bit more skeptical and think we should be open to other alternatives that fit the evidence.

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see that you are determined to make we work.  Virtually all the characters in the Caractors Document (note the spelling of "Caractors," which is used deliberately of that particular document) can be seen as cursive Egyptian. 

Again though I think it worth asking how many Egyptologists agree with that reading. (My own view is irrelevant since of course I can't read hieratic nor have read enough to know the variation) Do Gee and Muhlstein for instance agree? What about more critical Egyptologists? Ultimately the issue is how much variation is being allowed in the glyphs. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

.....................................Yeah, I guess all I'm saying is that while I understand why some see that as the process I'm a bit more skeptical and think we should be open to other alternatives that fit the evidence.

Yes, as long as we keep in mind 1 Cor 12:10 (hermeneia glosson), 14:26-28.  The subject is hermeneutics.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again though I think it worth asking how many Egyptologists agree with that reading. (My own view is irrelevant since of course I can't read hieratic nor have read enough to know the variation) Do Gee and Muhlstein for instance agree? What about more critical Egyptologists? Ultimately the issue is how much variation is being allowed in the glyphs. 

I haven't consulted with Gee or Muhlestein.  W. C. Hayes read the initial phrases of the Caractors Document as Hieratic Egyptian for ḥ3t sp 6, 3bd 4, 3ḫt, sw, which would mean "Regnal year 6, month 4, of the Inundation-season, day . . ."^[1] That was in 1956.  Today the first characters would be transcribed as ḥsbt, or rnpt-ḥsbt (rather than ḥ3t sp) "(year of) counting."^[2]  However, whether in fact Hayes' suggested transcription (and implied translation) of these first characters is credible or correct is another matter, dependent on a coherent translation of the entire Transcript.  However, many Egyptian documents begin with a date notice.

---

^[1] Hayes provided Stanley Kimball with notes on the Hieratic along with a Hieroglyphic transcription (copy in my possession, along with the Sunday, February 5, 1956, personal journal entry of Stanley B. Kimball).  Kimball sent copies along to FARMS.

^[2] James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 104.

 

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I haven't consulted with Gee or Muhlestein. 

I had emailed John on his opinion last time we discussed this but never heard back. (We were roommates a long time ago, but I'm sure he doesn't remember me terribly well)

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

On 8/26/2019 at 11:12 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

First, it is not a divine translation.  God has humans do his translations.  They are always human. 

 

Which human in history could speak (and/or read) both Reformed Egyptian and English?

Edited August 27, 2019 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Which human in history could speak (and/or read) both Reformed Egyptian and English?

Well Moroni at minimum if he spoke English to Joseph Smith. A few people have speculated that as a theory. I personally find that extremely speculative. After all in theory anyone could learn both languages. The bigger issue is why on earth they'd translate the way the text is translated if they could have done a more normal style of translation.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Well Moroni at minimum if he spoke English to Joseph Smith. A few people have speculated that as a theory. I personally find that extremely speculative. After all in theory anyone could learn both languages. The bigger issue is why on earth they'd translate the way the text is translated if they could have done a more normal style of translation.

Resurrected Moroni doesn't really fit the definition of "human," since the implication was that it was a mortal, fallible human just doing his best to translate between two languages that he spoke.  Resurrected beings would presumably have a perfect knowledge of both languages so that doesn't really solve the problem at hand.

Otherwise, Robert's statement would just as well apply to God himself (since God would be a "human" under that definition), and he would only be saying that a humanoid supernatural being did it as opposed to a goat or lizard or something, which I don't think anyone had suggested.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Resurrected Moroni doesn't really fit the definition of "human," since the implication was that it was a mortal, fallible human just doing his best to translate between two languages that he spoke.  Resurrected beings would presumably have a perfect knowledge of both languages so that doesn't really solve the problem at hand.

I'm not sure I buy that. I guess that's possible, but I doubt that when we're resurrected we suddenly get magic knowledge of everything. I suspect there's a lot of development we don't know about on the road after our resurrection. Maybe we're more capable, but I don't think we suddenly become omniscient.

I didn't take Robert to be implying it was a regular human, although perhaps I was misreading him.

I do agree with your point though. Whatever the translator and/or unconscious process we have to be able to explain the weaknesses not hte strengths of the translation. U&T as communicator simply doesn't do that. Something like a statistical translation AI does. I'm sure there's other explanations that can work as well.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[champatsch]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The bigger issue is why on earth they'd translate the way the text is translated if they could have done a more normal style of translation.

Have you considered the work of Philip Davis, that archaic, surprising language affects brain activity in possibly beneficial ways. This is actually an argument for reading the original language since it has more archaisms that we are unaccustomed to — it gets us thinking a bit more, stimulates autobiographical memory, useful for making connections.

For example,

Quote

The research shows the power of literature to shift mental pathways, to create new thoughts, shapes and connections in the young and the staid alike.

 

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Have you considered the work of Philip Davis, that archaic, surprising language affects brain activity in possibly beneficial ways. This is actually an argument for reading the original language since it has more archaisms that we are unaccustomed to — it gets us thinking a bit more, stimulates autobiographical memory, useful for making connections.

For example,

 

That would explain a KJV style but not NT quotations in the translations of the small plates or other apparent anachronisms.

The two main explanations for such phenomena are either the NT authors quoting pre-existent texts and loose translation. I don't think the former is really plausible for many passages. I know some have attempted to say that Mormon had a 4th century Bible text and that he used it - but that seems at best less plausible than the loose translation theory for the main Book of Mormon and unable to explain the same phenomena on the small plates.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I doubt that when we're resurrected we suddenly get magic knowledge of everything.

My sister teaches maths in a corner of America that has an identifiable Latter-day Saint minority. A few years back, one of her calculus students came in with a form to drop the class. She asked why, and he said it was just too hard and he wasn't enjoying it. Knowing his parents were members, she asked this boy, 'Don't you think you'll need to know calculus someday?'

'Yes', he said. 'But I'll just learn it in the next life'.

'Where I will be your teacher', she replied, 'and the subject will still be hard. You might as well do it now'.

The idea that resurrection somehow magically gifts omniscience is simply not supported by our theology.

Joseph Smith: 'So it is with the principles of the gospel — you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave'.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan