"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[juxtaposed]

Fine.  If your intention was to dress up the language, and make it seem more "sophisticated," then I can see using adieu.  In fact, I think that's exactly what Joseph Smith was intending.  Whether or not such editorializing and "dressing up" is appriopriate when translating an ancient text is debatable.

No, I did not say it was there for some arbitrary "air of sophistication" (or editorializing). It is there because the original title actually contains something like that "air of sophistication", and a good translation would try to keep some of that.

The fact that you point out that the word adieu does in fact "seem more sophisticated" is precisely the extra bit of meaning contained in the word adieu that "farewell" lacks! That extra sense is somewhat more poignant, more romantic. That's why adieu could simply be a superior translation given such a sufficiently romantic context.

Sayounara can be used as a much more powerful word in Japanese than "farewell" in English, and adieu manages to grasp some of that emotional weight.

It is more effective.

It is a better translation.

It is arguable though because sayounara isn't necessarily quite strong enough to justify such an extreme translation. However, in this context, I think adieu is a great translation, but I don't want to hash that out because it doesn't really get at the main point. I'd like to keep off of specific examples for that reason.

I wish I had better examples, but Japanese and English are the only languages I have a very intimate understanding of.

Hmm... another way of putting it (while avoiding specific examples) is like this:

Yes, the point is to dress up the language. The reason it works in a translation to English, is because sometimes the original language is dressed up as well. If we can dress up our writing by using adieu instead of "farewell", then it is perfectly reasonable that some ancient language might have a special word they use to dress up their language. Thus, the best translation of such a word would use a similarly dressed up variation in our language.

Ultimately translation is a very fuzzy process. It is difficult to do it in any "rigid" or "scientific" manner. It is an art more than anything. So long as any two words in the final language have any difference in meaning (no matter how small) it is possible for the second word to be a better translation than the first word. You can't judge the quality of the translation with the final language alone, it just doesn't work.

[Cowpie]

Okay, the apologists have seriously trounced the

[juxtaposed]

What else have you got, apologists? Because "adieu" still looks like a nail in the coffin to me.

First, let me get this out of the way:

I'm not an apologist, so please don't call me an apologist. I'm not even a Mormon, I am in fact, an Ex-Mormon. I've studied linguistics, and in general I'm a bit bothered by the average person's contorted views on such things as "meaning", "translation", "slang", etc. That's my only motivation here.

I am defending adieu because the critics are simply wrong, and I'd like them to see why, not because I care about the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Now to address your point...

Ultimately translation is a very fuzzy process. It is difficult to do it in any "rigid" or "scientific" manner. It is an art more than anything. So long as any two words in the final language have any difference in meaning (no matter how small) it is possible for the second word to be a better translation than the first word. You can't judge the quality of the translation with the final language alone, it just doesn't work.

Agreed, unless God is alleged to be the translator. It should be easy for him, no?

Yes! It should be very easy for him. He would, in fact, make no errors! The main point in my argument is that without the original material, there's no way for us to really determine those errors when it comes to single word choices. There's nothing implicit in the final result that suggests that adieu was the wrong word choice is there? Nothing in the context makes adieu an obvious error (if I'm missing something, please point it out.)

Next, you have the fact that adieu has a significantly different meaning from "goodbye", and a subtly different meaning from "farewell". (It would border on ridiculous to suggest otherwise.)

So there's nothing left to say. The word has a unique meaning, it is internally consistent with the text, and there's no source text, so there's no way to determine that it is anything but a perfect translation (at least from the useage of the word adieu.)

Not only is there no way to PROVE it, but it doesn't even suggest anything! If the word adieu was used dozens of times that would suggest the possibility of a bad translation. It wouldn't prove it, but statistically, you would expect "farewell" would regularly be a more valid translation. However, one instance of the word adieu is not statistically relevant, and doesn't suggest anything. Perhaps other instances of other words suggest it, but not this case, not this word.

I am trying to be as frank as possible, and if you want to point out where you don't agree, I would be glad to hash this out step-by-step if you're willing to be open about it.

[Mighty Curelom]

"adieu" still looks like a nail in the coffin to me.

I think this is part of the problem. Whatever "adieu" is, it's no smoking gun. If you're like me and you think JS just made the whole thing up, and that he threw in "adieu" to make his writing sound more fancy, then this issue is just one of those little things that support a much larger case. If the Book of Abraham papyri is the smoking gun, "adieu" is an old receipt for the same brand of shoes that match an imprint found at the crime site.

Not only is there no way to PROVE it, but it doesn't even suggest anything!

I disagree here. When 18 out of 19 bible translators prefer not to use adieu in a case where it could have been applicable, that leads me believe that the "correct" way to translate scripture into English is to use English words whenever possible. Personally, I would assume that God would be an accomplished translator, and would most likely agree with the 18 professional translators (in some cases groups of translators) rather than the one oddball guy who broke with convention. Again, it's not a smoking gun; if the only problem with the BoM or Mormonism was "adieu," it could certainly be excused as a minor anomaly. However, in the context of all the problems associated with the BoM, "adieu" is just another brick in a very large wall proving JS as the author.

[charity]

MC, so now you think God operates by majority vote of "accomplished" translators?

[Bsix]

This is what the "adieu" argument has boiled down to -- personal subjective opinion.

The original basis of the "adieu" criticism is that Joseph used a non-english word in the Book of Mormon. This was claimed to be a verifiable fact that could be demonstrated.

The apologists have answered with a blizzard of facts refuting that argument. "Adieu" is a legitimate part of the English language, and has been for nearly five centuries. It has been used in various translations into English. It has been used in native-language writings in both common and literary works. It has even been used in a translation of the Bible.

Thus, the argument has shifted to a sort of linguistic popularity contest. The claim evolved into an argument that while "adieu" may be acceptable and correct English, it is unusual and therefore suspect. With all due respect, that is nothing more than subjective projection. The proper use of a less-than-commonly-used English word in an English work proves nothing. Simply because a critic takes issue with the commonality of a particular word...even when that word is used in a manner that is grammatically, definitionally, and historically correct manner...does not mean Joseph Smith made it up.

Regards,

Six

[Pahoran]

Okay, the apologists have seriously trounced the

[Sput]

What else have you got, anti-Mormons? Because "adieu" still looks desperate and useless to me.

They dont got much. I avoided this whole thread cause its just silly. 1 word and ppl freak out about it. Well im going to go enjoy my dinner with the missionaries and laugh in my head that ppl could make a stink about 1 word.

[TrespassersW]

Again, it's not a smoking gun; if the only problem with the BoM or Mormonism was "adieu," it could certainly be excused as a minor anomaly.

Could someone point me to a publication that discusses the "anomalous" use of the word "adieu" in the Darby translation of the Bible? Any scholars who suggest that this choice of words somehow puts into question whether a translation from an ancient language was actually done? Anyone at all who has, in print, suggested that we should consider the translator's choice of words in this case to be especially meaningful? Or that it somehow indicates that the Darby translation of the Bible is fictional?

I guess I'm just looking for a reference point here. Can anyone point out to me where a similar argument has been made against some other translation effort? I'm having trouble imagining that someone suggesting the Bible is false because the Darby translation chose the word "adieu" would be taken seriously by anyone.

[Cowpie]

What else have you got, apologists? Because "adieu" still looks like a nail in the coffin to me.

First, let me get this out of the way:

I'm not an apologist, so please don't call me an apologist. I'm not even a Mormon, I am in fact, an Ex-Mormon. I've studied linguistics, and in general I'm a bit bothered by the average person's contorted views on such things as "meaning", "translation", "slang", etc. That's my only motivation here.

Sorry, Tresspassers, if I called you an apologist, or lumped you in with them. So many posters on this board, and I'm pretty new. Don't have ya'll straight.

The main point in my argument is that without the original material, there's no way for us to really determine those errors when it comes to single word choices.  There's nothing implicit in the final result that suggests that adieu was the wrong word choice is there?  Nothing in the context makes adieu an obvious error (if I'm missing something, please point it out.)

I'm not a linguist, and I'm not claiming that "adieu" doesn't mean what it is supposed to. As far as I know, he could have used adieu, adios, goodbye, farewell, shalom, or the Japanese word someone listed earlier and they all would have conveyed the meeting. He was saying goodbye, that much is obvious.

But, like MC, I believe the book was a product of the 19th century imagination and the word "adieu" is one of many, many reasons.

Next, you have the fact that adieu has a significantly different meaning from "goodbye", and a subtly different meaning from "farewell".  (It would border on ridiculous to suggest otherwise.)

I don't know that but I'll take your word for it. I would like to hear how they differ, in fact.

So there's nothing left to say.  The word has a unique meaning, it is internally consistent with the text, and there's no source text, so there's no way to determine that it is anything but a perfect translation (at least from the useage of the word adieu.)

But since nobody has seen the word in "reformed Egyptian" that was translated to mean "adieu," then how can anyone say whether it was the best choice or not? In this thread, the word has been said to mean "To God." That looks like a literal translation, from what little I know of French. It can be translated "go with God," if I remember what someone else said. So, if "goodbye" or "farewell" don't quite fill the bill, it could have just said, "to God" or "go with God."

Not only is there no way to PROVE it, but it doesn't even suggest anything!  If the word adieu was used dozens of times that would suggest the possibility of a bad translation. 

Well, I don't believe the book went through any sort of translation process to begin with, so to me it doesn't suggest a bad translation. It does still look like a big clue to the book's 19th Century origin.

[William the Conqueror]

Will there ever be an Adieu to this thread? I think I'll make mine now - Au Revoir.

[juxtaposed]

Not only is there no way to PROVE it, but it doesn't even suggest anything!

I disagree here. When 18 out of 19 bible translators prefer not to use adieu in a case where it could have been applicable, that leads me believe that the "correct" way to translate scripture into English is to use English words whenever possible. Personally, I would assume that God would be an accomplished translator, and would most likely agree with the 18 professional translators (in some cases groups of translators) rather than the one oddball guy who broke with convention. Again, it's not a smoking gun; if the only problem with the BoM or Mormonism was "adieu," it could certainly be excused as a minor anomaly. However, in the context of all the problems associated with the BoM, "adieu" is just another brick in a very large wall proving JS as the author.

Huh?

Once again, you're talking about a case where a source material exists (The Bible), whereas the Book of Mormon is not such a case. Yes, if there is a source material and multiple translators can look at that source material, and determine the best case, then you're absolutely correct.

The Book of Mormon is not such a case. You only have one "translator". If there was a source material and multiple professional translators could look at it and decide that adieu was a poor translation, fine. You don't have that. It is not a valid comparison at all.

So, once again, this is clearly not a problem at all.

[Beowulf]

To confound all you translators out there...

In the Japanese-language BofM, the word "adieu" is translated as.... (drumroll)

'Saraba" (not "sayonara").

Which is wonderful, because 'saraba" carries with it the connotation of never to meet again (yet we might, in another life...). How much closer can it get to "adieu" than that?

In other words, if Joseph Smith had been Japanese instead of American, this is the word he would have used for that ancient word that Jacob used (whatever it was).

But MC and LadySundancer object, saying that if God had translated the word, he would not have used "adieu".

But WHY NOT?

I simply cannot comprehend why it is not a perfectly good word for an upcountry New York farmer to use in 1829. It appears in the literature of the times, as one poster so eloquently showed.

But MC/LadySundancer object that the comparison with 19th century literature doesn't work, since the BofM purports to be an ancient work.

Again, WHY NOT? What language do you want JS to use?

He used the language he was familiar with. This includes KJV English (because it was in the Bible he was familiar with), it includes Shakespearean phrases (because such phrases are woven throughout the English language), it includes French words (because French has had such a huge influence on English over the past 1000 years).

All of this would be true REGARDLESS of whether JS was telling the truth about translating the BofM or not!

If he was lying, he would cobble something together based on the language he was familiar with (see above), including words like "adieu".

If he was telling the truth, he would translate an ancient text into words and language that he was familiar with, including words like "adieu."

Guess what? The result is exactly the same.

(Hasn't anyone of you ever read a translation of a classical text? Ever??? Somebody should do a word test for adieu in modern translations of Homer, Virgil, and the Venerable Bede, as well.) (BIG sigh)

Beowulf

[juxtaposed]

To confound all you translators out there...

In the Japanese-language BofM, the word "adieu" is translated as.... (drumroll)

'Saraba" (not "sayonara").

I was going to say that saraba seemed like too heavy handed of a translation for adieu, and was overly dramatic, etc. and that I was surprised they wouldn't just leave it in the original French as adyuu...

Then I read the passage again, and yeah, saraba is a perfect translation for the end of a conversation with all this talk of death and final goodbyes. In context, the passage carries even more weight than adieu (and certainly more weight than an ordinary "farewell"!).

I don't think anything in the English lexicon would have been too strong of a goodbye word for that passage. Which, if anything, does validate that adieu was probably a better choice of words than anything in plain English...

[Bernard Gui]

Those are fantastic...but can you find an example of the word "adieu" used in the English translation of a foreign work?  Because we're not really talking about using "adieu" the way an author of a literary work would; we're talking about using it the way a translator would.

How can you so completely miss the point?

Adieu is an English word adopted from French

long before Joseph Smith. It was commonly

used by his English and American contemporaries.

It appears as an English word in the 1828 Webster's

Dictionary.

Here's one used exactly in the same sense as the BoM...

Genll Washington's Farewell Orders issued to the Armies of the United States of America the 2d day of Novr 1783--Rocky Hill, near Princeton:

"And being now to conclude these his last public Orders, to take his ultimate leave, in a short time, of the Military Character, and to bid a final adieu to the Armies he has so long had the honor to Command--he can only again offer in their behalf his recommendations to their grateful Country, and his prayers to the God of Armies."

George Washington to David Stuart, 19 November 1786

(The Papers, Confederation Series, 4:387-88)

"Although I never more intended to appear on a public theatre, and had in a public manner bid adieu to public life; yet, if the voice of my Country had called me to this important duty, I might, in obedience to the repeated instances of its affection & confidence, have dispensed with these objections, but another now exists which would render my acceptance of this appointment impracticable, with any degree of consistency--"

George Washington to David Humphreys

10 October 1787

"I condole with you on the loss of your parents, but as they lived to a good old age you could not be unprepared for the shock; tho' there is something painful in bidding an adieu to those we love, or revere, when we know it is a final one. Reason, religion & Philosophy may soften the anguish, but time alone can irradicate it."

If these aren't enough for you, you might want to check these out at the UViriginia

e-text collection ( http://etext.lib.virginia.edu ). Most of these are in addition to

the examples I posted earlier. Can you now accept the fact "adieu" was a common

ENGLISH word used at the time of Joseph Smith?

Bernard

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Water-Witch [Vol 2] : 10 matches

Thorpe, Thomas Bangs, 1815-1878 : The Master's House: A Tale of Southern Life : 8 matches

Willis, Nathaniel Parker, 1806-1867 : Fun-Jottings; or, Laughs I Have Taken A Pen To : 7 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Pilot [Vol 2] : 7 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Water-Witch [Vol 1] : 7 matches

Melville, Herman, 1819-1891 : Moby-****; or, The Whale. : 6 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : Clarence; or, a Tale of Our Own Times [Vol 1] : 5 matches

Alcott, Louisa May, 1832-1888: Moods. : 4 matches

Cary, Alice, 1820-1871: Clovernook, or Recollections of our Neighborhood in the West [Volume II]. : 4 matches

Child, Lydia Maria Francis, 1802-1880 : A Romance of the Republic. : 4 matches

Holmes, Mary J. (Mary Jane Hawes), 1825-1907 : Darkness and Daylight. A Novel. : 4 matches

Melville, Herman, 1819-1891 : The Piazza Tales. : 4 matches

Evans, Augusta J. (Augusta Jane), 1835-1909 : St. Elmo: A Novel : 4 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Deerslayer [Vol 2] : 4 matches

Bennett, Emerson, 1822-1905: The League of the Miami. : 3 matches

Twain, Mark, 1835-1910: The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day. : 3 matches

Twain, Mark, 1835-1910: The Innocents Abroad; or, The New Pilgrim's Progress. : 3 matches

Eggleston, Edward, 1837-1902 : The End of the World: A Love Story. : 3 matches

Ingraham, J. H. (Joseph Holt), 1809-1860: The Pillar of Fire; or, Israel in Bondage. : 3 matches

Ingraham, J. H. (Joseph Holt), 1809-1860 : The Prince of the House of David; or, Three Years in the Holy City. Being a Series of the Letters of Adina...and relating, as by an eye witness, all the scenes and wonderful incidents in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, from his baptism in Jordan to his crucifixion on Clavary. : 3 matches

Landon, Melville D. (Melville De Lancey), 1839-1910 : Saratoga in 1901. By Eli Perkins (pseud). Fun, Love, Society & Satire. : 3 matches

Lanier, Sidney, 1842-1881 : Tiger-Lilies: A Novel. : 3 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: Precaution [Vol 2] : 3 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Last of the Mohicans [Vol 1] : 3 matches

Irving, Washington : Tales of a Traveller [Vol 1] : 3 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : "Romance in Real Life" , from The Legendary, N. P. Willis, ed : 3 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : Clarence; or, a Tale of Our Own Times [Vol 2] : 3 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : Tales and Sketches : 3 matches

Cary, Alice, 1820-1871: Clovernook, or Recollections of our Neighborhood in the West [Volume I]. : 2 matches

Cooke, John Esten, 1830-1886 : Mohun; or, The Last Days of Lee and His Paladins. Final Memoirs of a Staff Officer Serving in Virginia. From the Mss. of Colonel Surry, of Eagle's Nest. : 2 matches

Cummins, Maria S. (Maria Susanna), 1827-1866 : Mabel Vaughan. : 2 matches

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 1804-1864: The Blithedale Romance. : 2 matches

Johnston, Richard Malcolm, 1822-1898: Dukesborough Tales. By Philemon Perch [pseud]. : 2 matches

Trowbridge, J. T. (John Townsend), 1827-1916: Coupon Bonds, and Other Stories. : 2 matches

Wallace, Lew, 1827-1905. : The Fair God; or, The Last of the 'Tzins. A Tale of the Conquest of Mexico. : 2 matches

Child, Lydia Maria (Francis): Philothea : 2 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Prairie [Vol 2] : 2 matches

Hawthorne, Nathaniel : Twice-Told Tales : 2 matches

Irving, Washington : Tales of a Traveller [Vol 2] : 2 matches

Kirkland, Caroline Matilda : A New Home -- Who'll Follow? Or, Glimpses of Western Life. By Mrs. Mary Clavers [pseud] : 2 matches

Kirkland, Caroline Matilda : Forest Life [Vol 1] : 2 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : The Linwoods, volume 1 : 2 matches

Willis, Nathaniel Parker : Romance of Travel : 2 matches

Alcott, Louisa May, 1832-1888: Hospital Sketches. : 1 matches

Alcott, Louisa May, 1832-1888: Work: A Story of Experience. : 1 matches

Aldrich, Thomas Bailey, 1836-1907: Prudence Palfrey. A Novel. : 1 matches

Cozzens, Frederic S. (Frederic Swartwout), 1818-1869 : The Sparrowgrass Papers; or, Living in the Country. : 1 matches

Curtis, George William, 1824-1892 : Trumps: A Novel. : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore, 1789-1851 : Letter from James Fenimore Cooper to William Gilmore Simms (January 05, 1844) : 1 matches

James, Henry, 1843-1916 : A Passionate Pilgrim, and Other Tales. : 1 matches

Judd, Sylvester, 1813-1853: Margaret: A Tale of the Real and the Ideal, Blight and Bloom : 1 matches

Judd, Sylvester, 1813-1853 : Margaret: A Tale of the Real and the Ideal, Blight and Bloom : 1 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria, 1789-1867: Married or Single? : 1 matches

Shillaber, B. P. (Benjamin Penhallow), 1814-1890: Life and Sayings of Mrs. Partington and Others of the Family. Edited by B. P. Shillaber... : 1 matches

Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 1811-1896 : Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life among the Lowly : 1 matches

Bird, Robert Montgomery: The Hawks of Hawk-Hollow [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Bird, Robert Montgomery: Sheppard Lee [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Bird, Robert Montgomery: Sheppard Lee [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Child, Lydia Maria (Francis): Hobomok : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: Precaution [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Spy [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Spy [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Pioneers [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Pioneers [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: The Prairie [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Cooper, James Fenimore: Jack Tier [Vol 1] : 1 matches

Dawes, Rufus : Nix's Mate: An Historical Romance of America [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Hawthorne, Nathaniel : The Gentle Boy : 1 matches

Irving, Washington : Tales of a Traveller [Vol 3] : 1 matches

Kirkland, Caroline Matilda : Forest Life [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Poe, Edgar Allan : Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : Redwood: A Tale [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : Hope Leslie [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Sedgwick, Catharine Maria : The Linwoods, volume 2 : 1 matches

Simms, William Gilmore : Richard Hurdis [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Simms, William Gilmore : Beauchampe [Vol 2] : 1 matches

Simms, William Gilmore : The Wigwam and the Cabin [Vol 2] : 1 matches

[charity]

Wow, Bernard. Terrific. There is not one single excuse left to this old argument. I hope Mighty Curelom sees this post.

[Mighty Curelom]

How can you so completely miss the point?

How could you so completely miss my point? If you're trying to prove that "adieu" was used in 19th c. literature, I completely agree. Since the BoM is 19th c. literature, it fits right in. But you don't believe the BoM is literature; you believe it is a translation of an ancient text. I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture. Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture. That's a key distinction. For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word? Absolutely. A five percent chance.

But MC and LadySundancer object, saying that if God had translated the word, he would not have used "adieu".

But WHY NOT?

No one can know exactly what God would do (this is sort of silly, since there is no God, but let's pretend there is one for the sake of argument). But I would personally assume that God would be an expert at translating. The human experts who translated the bible--with only a single exception--chose not to use "adieu." Now, if God translated the BoM, choosing to use "adieu" would have been a decision that 95% of human experts would not have made. Which leaves us with 3 options:

1- God isn't as good at translating as human translators, since he did something that 95% of human bible translators didn't do.

2- God is a perfect translator, and 95% of bible translators throughout history have been doing it wrong.

3- God wasn't involved at all.

For me, the third option is the most reasonable.

But MC/LadySundancer object that the comparison with 19th century literature doesn't work, since the BofM purports to be an ancient work.

Again, WHY NOT? What language do you want JS to use?

The question is not what language do I expect JS to use, but what question I expect GOD to use. I would expect God's language to transcend the limitations of a 19th c. New England farmboy. I would expect God's language to be free from cultural artifacts, like KJV English and Shakespearian influences. I would expect God's language to be free from back-woods hickisms and laughably poor grammar.

If he was lying, he would cobble something together based on the language he was familiar with (see above), including words like "adieu".

Absolutely right.

If he was telling the truth, he would translate an ancient text into words and language that he was familiar with, including words like "adieu."

But only if he was translating in the traditional manner--that is, reading the text, comprehending the concepts described, then putting those concepts into English using his own words and phrases.

That's exactly how pretty much every apologist describes the BoM translation process--because they have to. There is just too much Joseph Smith in the BoM for them not to acknowledge his influence on it. If you want to take this position, fine. It clears up most translation problems with the BoM (except for the Isaiah portions, which are decidedly NOT in JS's own words, but a blatant copy of the KJV--but if course apologists have an ad hoc explanation for this, too.)

The problem is that this method of translation contradicts every known contemporary account of the translation process, which was described as a visual, mechanical process whereby JS simply read the words that God put on a stone. If the contemporary accounts are correct, then every example of JS's influence on the wording of the BoM is an evidence of fraud.

[juliann]

I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture. Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture. That's a key distinction. For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

You don't do much translating, do you. The reason we have so many translations of the Bible now is because they are different in some aspect. You seem to think Joseph was an accomplished translator so as to know what "95%" of the other guys did. Interesting premise.

Now, if God translated the BoM, choosing to use "adieu" would have been a decision that 95% of human experts would not have made.  Which leaves us with 3 options:

No...there are 4 options. You left out the one about fundamentalists trying to make rules for liberal religions.

[Bsix]

If you're trying to prove that "adieu" was used in 19th c. literature, I completely agree. Since the BoM is 19th c. literature, it fits right in. But you don't believe the BoM is literature; you believe it is a translation of an ancient text.

Six: With respect, the point was to show that "adieu" was used because it is perfectly acceptable and proper English do so...not to show that the word is some sort of fancy literary term. Other posters have noted the widespread use of the word in ordinary use. The word was used by John Wesley in his personal correspondence, several Methodist hymns use the word, Thomas Jefferson used it in his drafts of the Declaration of Independence, etc. The list of uses of the word in common use and literary use is quite lengthy.

I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture.

Six: I'm not sure how this logic applies. In essence, this argument supposes that the Book of Mormon is going against convention because there is an apples-to-apples translation of the same ancient word into english and the Book of Mormon eschews the commonly used word. The broader point is that "adieu" is a perfectly acceptable word to use. At least one Bible translator used it. (And from what I've seen, he did so without a speck of criticism.) The peer-pressure argument is to tie God's hands and say that he must bend his word to those of humans.

The other amusing aspect of this argument is it is the reverse-plagarism attack. Earlier in this thread, Lady Sundancer was attacking "adieu" because it was plagarism from "adieu" in the Bible. Now, the use of "adieu" is being attacked because it's too original. Go figure.

Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture.

Six: That is not true. I have cited one example where it has been used in an English translation -- without ever the suggestion that it is improper. There are other examples where "adieu" has been used in translations from a native language into English -- including an ancient language translation. While it is true that "adieu" is not common in English language, it is perfectly correct to do so.

That's a key distinction. For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

Six: There is that reverse-plagarism argument again. The standard being suggested here is one of popularity...not proper usage. It is the attempt to suggest that God should bend his inspired translation of an unkown ancient word into popular modern convention so that it would be just like everyone else.

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word? Absolutely. A five percent chance.

Six: This is an attempt to quantify the unknown for the purpose of supporting a preconceived bias.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the original ancient-language farwell written by Jacob used two different words for farwell. Remember, in the text, he says goodbye in two different ways.

"...to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." Jacob 7:27

We've heard a lot of complaining that the Book of Mormon eschews the use of the more conventional word "farewell." The fact is the Book of Mormon does use "farwell" for the first parting tribute, and "adieu" for the second parting tribute.

It is possible that the English text uses two different words to reflect two different nuances in the original text. Or, it could something as simple as the use of of two synonyms to avoid redundancy. In either case, it is perfectly acceptable and proper English.

Regards,

Six

[USU78]

Will there ever be an Adieu to this thread? I think I'll make mine now - Au Revoir.

Adieu!  Adieu!  To yieu and yieu and yieh!

-- Rodgers & Hammerstein

[JAHS]

Besides the word "banquet" which someone else already mentioned, it interesting to note the use of other French derived words in the Bible, such as, "tache"(Ex 26:6), "laver"(Ex 30:18) and "bruit"(Jer 10:22). These words are no longer used by English-speaking people, although they evidently were understandable enough at the time the King James translators elected to use them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Will there ever be an Adieu to this thread? I think I'll make mine now - Au Revoir.

More to the point, will there ever be an adieu to anti-Mormons' use of this meritless argument?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think that "Adieu" is used to prove the Book of Mormon false. I see it as but one piece of a body of evidence that indicates the Book of Mormon is not what it was presented to be.

Lady Sundancer

Translation: The adieu argument is valid because I, having already rejected the Book of Mormon on other grounds, choose to see it that way, not because it has any inherent merit of its own.

[Beowulf]

QUOTE

[USU78]

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word? Absolutely. A five percent chance.

Chill Wills, Tex Ritter and Andy Devine would be delighted to hear that they have now been elevated to fancy sophisticate status.

Red River Valley (Traditional ca. 1865)

From this valley they say you are going,

We will miss your bright eyes and sweet smile,

For they say you are taking the sunshine

That brightens our path for awhile.

CHORUS:

Come and sit by my side if you love me,

Do not hasten to bid me adieu,

But remember the Red River Valley,

And the girl that has loved only you.

Won't you think of this valley you're leaving?

Oh, how lonely and sad it will be,

Oh, and think of the dear heart you're breaking,

And the grief that you're causing me.

CHORUS

From this valley they say you are going,

When you go, may your true love go, too?

Would you leave her behind unprotected?

When she loves no other but you?

CHORUS

I have promised you, darling, that never

Will a word from my lips cause you pain;

And my life, it will be yours forever

If you only will love me again.