Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 OK so I just got done watching Royal Skousen and friends. I thought it was a great show, but it did leave me with some questions.I agree with Royal that Joseph was in need of "instruments" of translation and that Joseph saw word for word the text in these instruments. This hypothesis was presented, IMO, in contrast to the idea (which Royal said he didn't agree with) that Joseph received idea's that he then expressed in his own words.questions if I accept Royals position.1. How did the grammatical errors creep into the text?(I didn't like Royal's solution to this "problem".) Why would God express himself in a fashion that is less than perfect if he is going to the trouble of revealing the translation of the text in a visual form which leaves no room for error?2. Why include KJV errors if the text was revealed "visually" in the instruments. Why didn't God just clean up the text while they were at it. Same question goes for 2nd Isaiah and other anachronistic problems that I haven't figured out yet. I'm actually at a point where I don't think the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. I think both were employed by the Prophet at times.3. Does anyone know of an instance where Joseph translated without any instruments?Thanks for your help~Big UP!
Glenn101 Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 OK so I just got done watching Royal Skousen and friends. I thought it was a great show, but it did leave me with some questions.I agree with Royal that Joseph was in need of "instruments" of translation and that Joseph saw word for word the text in these instruments. This hypothesis was presented, IMO, in contrast to the idea (which Royal said he didn't agree with) that Joseph received idea's that he then expressed in his own words.questions if I accept Royals position.1. How did the grammatical errors creep into the text?(I didn't like Royal's solution to this "problem".) Why would God express himself in a fashion that is less than perfect if he is going to the trouble of revealing the translation of the text in a visual form which leaves no room for error?2. Why include KJV errors if the text was revealed "visually" in the instruments. Why didn't God just clean up the text while they were at it. Same question goes for 2nd Isaiah and other anachronistic problems that I haven't figured out yet. I'm actually at a point where I don't think the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. I think both were employed by the Prophet at times.3. Does anyone know of an instance where Joseph translated without any instruments?Thanks for your help~Big UP! This is one of the things that has puzzled me a bit. Some of the Isaiah quotes are word for word just as is in the King Kames Bible, supposed errors and all, and others are considerably different. I have never heard a good explanation for that. I guess no one really knows.Glenn
Rommelator Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 3. Does anyone know of an instance where Joseph translated without any instruments?The Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 The Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri.Thanks, but I meant from the BoM
torquate Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 See Royal Skousen's response to question #8.http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1439
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 See Royal Skousen's response to question #8.http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1439He brought this up on the show. When discussing the usage of 16th century English he said he couldn't explain it. At that point he didn't use this fact as evidence of anything and said simply "I don't know" what it means.It also doesn't explain why God would include textual problems found in the KJV in the BoM, no matter what time period the English came from.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 I guess this is going back up on the proverbial shelf. Filed under "I wish I knew". Nevertheless, the Church moves forward like the rock cut out of the Mountain...Big UP!
Hammer Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 This is one of the things that has puzzled me a bit. Some of the Isaiah quotes are word for word just as is in the King Kames Bible, supposed errors and all, and others are considerably different. I have never heard a good explanation for that. I guess no one really knows.GlennDidn't they mention during the program about the publishers intersessions on this? As I remember they said that the publisher went to the Bible on these and did some correcting of their own--not necessarily by permission.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 He brought this up on the show. When discussing the usage of 16th century English he said he couldn't explain it. At that point he didn't use this fact as evidence of anything and said simply "I don't know" what it means.It also doesn't explain why God would include textual problems found in the KJV in the BoM, no matter what time period the English came from.This has never been a real problem for me. The King James Version of the Bible constituted the language of Christian scripture for the English-speaking world at the time the Book of Mormon was given through Joseph Smith. It makes sense to me that the Book of Mormon would be given in a form consistent with and familiar to readers of scripture. Also, that explains to me why the Church has not since adopted one of the newer translations of the Bible. It would then be inconsistent with the Book of Mormon as it was revealed in 1830.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 This has never been a real problem for me. The King James Version of the Bible constituted the language of Christian scripture for the English-speaking world at the time the Book of Mormon was given through Joseph Smith. It makes sense to me that the Book of Mormon would be given in a form consistent with and familiar to readers of scripture. Also, that explains to me why the Church has not since adopted one of the newer translations of the Bible. It would then be inconsistent with the Book of Mormon as it was revealed in 1830.If this is true, then it would support the hypothesis that Joseph received "ideas" which he then expressed in "a form consistent with and familiar to readers of the scripture". Royal seemed to be convinced this was not the case. I am leaning towards a mixture of the two. In any case there is very little first hand accounts of this process.Didn't they mention during the program about the publishers intersessions on this? As I remember they said that the publisher went to the Bible on these and did some correcting of their own--not necessarily by permission.Yes but this fact explains very little regarding the issues I brought up in my OP.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 If this is true, then it would support the hypothesis that Joseph received "ideas" which he then expressed in "a form consistent with and familiar to readers of the scripture".Not necessarily. It could have been the Lord's design to give the Book of Mormon in this form, possibly for the reason I have suggested.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 Not necessarily. It could have been the Lord's design to give the Book of Mormon in this form, possibly for the reason I have suggested.Could be. I just have a hard time thinking a Perfect God would not reveal a Perfect text. I happen to the think the BoM is wonderfully powerful in its current form. I really am just straining at gnats. It's not that big a deal.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Could be. I just have a hard time thinking a Perfect God would not reveal a Perfect text. I happen to the think the BoM is wonderfully powerful in its current form.As do I. And I don't concede that what critics label as textual imperfections are necessarily such in every case. Just glancing at Skousen, I see he makes the point that some of the grammar and vocabulary of the Book of Mormon is consistent with 16th Century English. Or, in other words, the King James Bible.
cinepro Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 I'm actually at a point where I don't think the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. I think both were employed by the Prophet at times.Yeah, most apologists end up there eventually. It's the only nonsensical theory that seems to make sense.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 As do I. And I don't concede that what critics label as textual imperfections are necessarily such in every case. Just glancing at Skousen, I see he makes the point that some of the grammar and vocabulary of the Book of Mormon is consistent with 16th Century English. Or, in other words, the King James Bible.I also reserve judgment on many grammatical and textual imperfections. Also the 16th century English is quite fascinating. IIRC Skousen said that the text contains no phrases that date later than 1720. An extremely difficult feat that is compounded by all the other miraculous literary impossibilities contained in the BoM.
Hammer Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Yes but this fact explains very little regarding the issues I brought up in my OP.Why include KJV errors if the text was revealed "visually" in the instruments. Why didn't God just clean up the text while they were at it. Same question goes for 2nd Isaiah and other anachronistic problems that I haven't figured out yet. So you wanted the errors in the Isaiah chapters fixed by the publishers? Maybe they were in the original text.
Mighty Curelom Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 I also reserve judgment on many grammatical and textual imperfections. Also the 16th century English is quite fascinating. IIRC Skousen said that the text contains no phrases that date later than 1720. An extremely difficult feat that is compounded by all the other miraculous literary impossibilities contained in the BoM."Why the heck would a book written 2000 years ago and translated in the 1800s contain archaic English from the 1500s?" "Who cares? How could Joseph have done it?"
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 Why include KJV errors if the text was revealed "visually" in the instruments. Why didn't God just clean up the text while they were at it. Same question goes for 2nd Isaiah and other anachronistic problems that I haven't figured out yet. So you wanted the errors in the Isaiah chapters fixed by the publishers? Maybe they were in the original text.Even if they were in the original text why didn't God just clean it up before he revealed it to Joseph?
Hammer Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Even if they were in the original text why didn't God just clean it up before he revealed it to Joseph?Well He could have (He meaning God) done a lot of things differently throughout all of the history of mankind-- but He didn't.I guess a few bumps in the road were left there just for those who needed them to trip on.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 "Why the heck would a book written 2000 years ago and translated in the 1800s contain archaic English from the 1500s?" "Who cares? How could Joseph have done it?"My belief is that he didn't do it. I think there is a large amount of evidence that he didn't do. However, I think there is also evidence of his own personal influence being woven into the expression of the translation-- and never at the expense of the Spiritual message that God wanted us to have. Namely, the fullness of the Gospel.Well He could have (He meaning God) done a lot of things differently throughout all of the history of mankind-- but He didn't.I guess a few bumps in the road were left there just for those who needed them to trip on.That's funny. I like that. I don't agree with it, but it's relevant.
cinepro Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Even if they were in the original text why didn't God just clean it up before he revealed it to Joseph?Honestly, these conversations sound just like me and my coworkers sitting around and talking about Star Wars. "But why did Ben say this in Episode IV when this happened in Episode I?"Answer: "George Lucas moves in mysterious ways, and it is not for us to question why. We must have faith that if we interpret the story correctly, it is all perfectly logical in the end, with no contradictions or inconsistencies."Like this......and this.
Hammer Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 My belief is that he didn't do it. I think there is a large amount of evidence that he didn't do. However, I think there is also evidence of his own personal influence being woven into the expression of the translation-- and never at the expense of the Spiritual message that God wanted us to have. Namely, the fullness of the Gospel.That's funny. I like that. I don't agree with it, but it's relevant.Well then what does this mean in regards to the principle --to you?Jacob 4: 14 14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 Well then what does this mean in regards to the principle --to you?Jacob 4: 14 14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.First riddle me this. "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble..." Does God really give us weaknesses? Or is there another possible interpretation of this scripture?
Lamanite Posted June 2, 2008 Author Posted June 2, 2008 Honestly, these conversations sound just like me and my coworkers sitting around and talking about Star Wars. "But why did Ben say this in Episode IV when this happened in Episode I?"Answer: "George Lucas moves in mysterious ways, and it is not for us to question why. We must have faith that if we interpret the story correctly, it is all perfectly logical in the end, with no contradictions or inconsistencies."Like this......and this.LOL! Heee-Lare-eeous!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.