Translation Method

[volgadon]

No. It had to do with your claim about reading a scholarly commentary on Psalm 14.

And you are still wrong about that.

Yes. I was generalizing based on the absence of any scholarly commentaries that suggest Psalm 14 referred to those who deny the existence of a god.

Correction, based on the absence in any that YOU have read. I've no doubt it really is a miniscule number.

That's fine. I believe that there are invisible ninjas hiding under my bed. Do I have evidence for this? No. Just like you, I'm just going to believe. It's a gut thing.

You also seem to believe you are unbelievably clever, much like you belive in those invisible ninjas. Leaving your sad fantasy world for the even sadder reality, I take it you believe that unless it is printed in a scholarly source it is false? Great, you'd rather see everything remain moribund so you can appeal to authoority and dismiss any counter positions with a a lofty wave of the hand.

That is what I have been saying the WHOLE time. And you were constantly telling me I was wrong.

Really, so you weren't claiming that nobody was ever an atheist til a certain time in Greek thought? You weren't claiming that this psalm is NOT about people who deny the existence of deity, be it inwardly or outwardly? If you were agreeing with me, why the vicious arrogance?

Pragmatically it may amount to the same thing, but it is still not the same thing.

The finer, metaphysical points. I know you've spent a lot of money for school, but, really, pragmatically there is little difference. I suspect it variates among different people.

No actually it's quite different. One is denying the rejecting the sovereignty of God in their lives--ie, the sinner. The other is denying the existence of God--ie, an atheist.

And we are back to shallow definitions.

[volgadon]

You're right. Sorry Volgy. I shouldn't accuse you of lying. I just have thin skin and got tired of your constant accusation of me being ignorant.

If I ever called you ignorant on this thread for anything other than your arrogantly, ignorantly accusing me of lying, then I do apologise.

I apologise any way, but as much as you don't like being called ignorant, I hate being called a liar even more.

I should have just recognized that you had moved away from your original position and were actually agreeing with me for the most part (though were still trying to fight me anyways).

Frankly, you never tried to understand my initial position, or even discuss it much. And then dismiss it as being of no worth or value. That got my hackles up.

[volgadon]

Please ignore my sharp tone. It was before I read your apology, I was posting in frustration.

[volgadon]

Except that, as volgadon finally admitted, the denial of God's existence has not always been present.

I think you misunderstood me when I said that the denial wasn't expressed outwardly.

[Benjamin McGuire]

the Narrator writes:

Are you talking about Psalm 14 or the BofM? I'm a bit confused here. If the scholarly and the pastoral/popular views are often at odds, then it would seem to be very relevant.

Would you explain this? What exactly is the significance of this to your position. Because frankly, I am becoming a bit confused.

You also noted this:

I'm aware that some of the pre-socratics were arguing for a type of material atheism even long before this. The question, however, is if this plays within the worldview of the Psalmist.

Look, your original statement which started this line of comments read like this:

... you still have the problem of secular humanism or even just atheism supposedly existing well over 2,000 years ago.

And now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In the long run, it doesn't matter in the context of this remark whether or not the Psalmist was strictly atheistic. It seems clear that historically, it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic. This is why in a discussion like this, the necessity of understanding the author's intent in the Psalm is diminished by later interpretation. We don't have to know what he meant to understand that others read it in this way. And popular views of the text, in this case, are just as important (if not more important) as any discussion over the Psalmists world view. That is, there is evidence of a strict atheism over 2000 years ago - and that evidence isn't really impacted by any discussion of what the Psalmist himself might or might not have believed and wrote about. Further, the text in Psalm 14:1 lends itself to a strict atheistic interpretation. The wicked man is presumably an Israelite (not a worshiper of non-Israelite divinities). So we cannot really expect it to refer to the kinds of scenarios which you are dreaming up to interpret it in a way which doesn't reflect any kind of atheism at all. And if you are going to admit to a strict atheism in the pre-Socratics, your earlier point of atheism existing well over 2,000 years ago is proven wrong by your own comments.

Ben M.

[Uncertain]

YES!

AMEN!

Uncertain,

There are few posts with which I have ever agreed more than this one. I've been writing about the need for controls, to establish a baseline of expected results, for years, though I have probably not expressed it so well as you have here. I remain unimpressed by Book of Mormon parallels to Meso-American cultures, for instance, because I'm not sure what number and strength of parallels I ought to expect between the Book of Mormon and a culture to which it is clearly unrelated. I would give far more evidentiary weight to such parallels if the Book of Mormon were also assiduously compared to the cultures of Han dynasty China and the 10th century Vikings, cultures to which no one thinks the book is plausibly related. If these comparisons found much greater parallel between the Book of Mormon and the Maya than between the Book of Mormon and such other cultures, then I would accord the former with substantial evidentiary value. Lacking something like this, I have no reason to think that the proferred parallels are anything remarkable.

So, as they say, great minds think alike--and so do ours!

It's always nice to find someone on a resonant frequency.

Don

Hi Don,

Thanks! You know what they say about blind squirrels and nuts. Well in this scenario I'm the squirrel .

[William Schryver]

Would you explain this? What exactly is the significance of this to your position. Because frankly, I am becoming a bit confused.

/snip/

In the long run, it doesn't matter in the context of this remark whether or not the Psalmist was strictly atheistic. It seems clear that historically, it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic. This is why in a discussion like this, the necessity of understanding the author's intent in the Psalm is diminished by later interpretation. We don't have to know what he meant to understand that others read it in this way. And popular views of the text, in this case, are just as important (if not more important) as any discussion over the Psalmists world view. That is, there is evidence of a strict atheism over 2000 years ago - and that evidence isn't really impacted by any discussion of what the Psalmist himself might or might not have believed and wrote about. Further, the text in Psalm 14:1 lends itself to a strict atheistic interpretation. The wicked man is presumably an Israelite (not a worshiper of non-Israelite divinities). So we cannot really expect it to refer to the kinds of scenarios which you are dreaming up to interpret it in a way which doesn't reflect any kind of atheism at all. And if you are going to admit to a strict atheism in the pre-Socratics, your earlier point of atheism existing well over 2,000 years ago is proven wrong by your own comments.

Ben M.

Ouch!

[the narrator]

I think you misunderstood me when I said that the denial wasn't expressed outwardly.

Perhaps this whole thing was a two-way misunderstanding. Again, my apologies.

[the narrator]

the Narrator writes:Would you explain this? What exactly is the significance of this to your position. Because frankly, I am becoming a bit confused.

My position is that Psalm 14 was not talking about strict atheism--the denial of the existence of a god. Thus, it seems quite significant on whether or not we are talking about Psalm 14.

Look, your original statement which started this line of comments read like this:And now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Good catch. You are correct in my failure to recognize that I was admitting that Korihor may have been an atheist because on the other side of the globe a civilization who had a completely different worldview had some atheists--though of course, Korihor believed in angels and the devil, which would have precluded him from being a strict atheist.

In the long run, it doesn't matter in the context of this remark whether or not the Psalmist was strictly atheistic.

Of course. Nobody is claiming that the Psalmist was any type of atheist. Now that would certainly be a unique interpretation.

It seems clear that historically, it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic

.

Except you already said that "And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God."

Because strict atheism was not even a concept in the worldview of the Psalmist, it seems quite impossible that it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic. Unless, by 'historically', you mean more historically after the time of the Psalmist.

This is why in a discussion like this, the necessity of understanding the author's intent in the Psalm is diminished by later interpretation. We don't have to know what he meant to understand that others read it in this way.

Of course. But we aren't talking about how others later interpreted it. We are talking about (at least that is what I assume we were) whether Psalm 14 is evidence of ancient strict atheists.

And popular views of the text, in this case, are just as important (if not more important) as any discussion over the Psalmists world view.

Unless we are talking about the Psalmists world view--which is exactly what I am talking about.

Further, the text in Psalm 14:1 lends itself to a strict atheistic interpretation

.

Which you earlier said it wasn't: "And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God."

The wicked man is presumably an Israelite (not a worshiper of non-Israelite divinities). So we cannot really expect it to refer to the kinds of scenarios which you are dreaming up to interpret it in a way which doesn't reflect any kind of atheism at all.

No Mr. Ben. I was saying that it was not describing strict atheism/secular humanism. If you want to call it practical atheism or deism, go ahead--though I still disagree with this interpretation. However, it is clearly not talking about strict atheism or 20th century secular humanism--the type that William Schrvy was claiming Korihor was espousing.

And if you are going to admit to a strict atheism in the pre-Socratics, your earlier point of atheism existing well over 2,000 years ago is proven wrong by your own comments.

touche.

Tell me where I was wrong with my two original claims:

1. Korihor was not a strict atheist or what would be seen as 20th century secular humanism--he clearly believed in angels and the devil.

2. Psalm 14 was not about strict atheism--i.e. the denial of the existence of any god, or as you put it :"And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God."

[William Schryver]

the narrator:

However, it is clearly not talking about strict atheism or 20th century secular humanism--the type that William Schrvy was claiming Korihor was espousing.

I am actually quite diligent about getting enough Vitamin C in my diet, but your subtle dig has been noted.

[the narrator]

the narrator:

I am actually quite diligent about getting enough Vitamin C in my diet, but your subtle dig has been noted.

Huh? What dig?

[volgadon]

Perhaps this whole thing was a two-way misunderstanding. Again, my apologies.

And mine. I'll try my hardest to avoid misunderstandings with you, or at least anything acrimonious.

[the narrator]

And mine. I'll try my hardest to avoid misunderstandings with you, or at least anything acrimonious.

I tend to be a very misunderstood individual

[volgadon]

I tend to be a very misunderstood individual

As Calvin once remarked to Hobbes, "I am a misunderstood genius. Nobody but me thinks I am a genius."

Peace.

[Lamanite]

I keep hoping I'll check back in and find that someone actually applied their personal translation methodology to the text I provided way back on page 5 or something.

*sigh*

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

It seems to be a multi faceted problem which no one cares to address specifically. I'll repost for anyone interested:

2 Ne. 22: 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

How is it that this text came into existence? What do you (anyone out there) think the exact process was from the beginning of the verse with "Behold" to the end with "salvation." Obviously paying close attention to the name/title Jehovah. How did it work? How did these words get on the paper?

Big UP!

Lamanite

1. Nephi writes it down (perhaps in 'reformed egyptian,' which, according to Mormon, is not perfect in transcribing one's thought.

2. Moroni buries it.

3. Joseph digs it out.

4. While not actually using the plates, Joseph 'translates' the reformed egyptian into supposedly what Nephi originally intended, and not what he actually wrote in reformed egyptian, which according to Mormon, would have had imperfections.

(though it is not clear that Nephi wrote in this manner, so it may differ with him and Mormon's writing).

4a. Joseph is impressed with the original intent of Nephi's writing, while not looking at the text.

4b. Joseph translates this intent into his own english, using KJV language (and poetic style) and 19th century religious idioms.

4b1. Perhaps Joseph then sees the text in his mind's eye.

4b2. and then reads off what he sees in his mind's eye--as I often do when someone asks me how to spell a word.

5. Scribe writes it down.

[volgadon]

I keep hoping I'll check back in and find that someone actually applied their personal translation methodology to the text I provided way back on page 5 or something.

*sigh*

Big UP!

Lamanite

I think it isn't enough to work with.

[Lamanite]

I think it isn't enough to work with.

I mean, I could give a bigger sample, but I think if one had a consistent method-- it should just be plug and play? No?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

I mean, I could give a bigger sample, but I think if one had a consistent method-- it should just be plug and play? No?

This assumes that Joseph even had a method.

What was Nephi's method of coming up with the original text? I'm guessing that the answer is something something similar to the answer of Joseph's 'method' in 'translating' the text.

[Lamanite]

This assumes that Joseph even had a method.

What was Nephi's method of coming up with the original text? I'm guessing that the answer is something something similar to the answer of Joseph's 'method' in 'translating' the text.

I'm not sold on the idea that there was a consistent method throughout. (Would that I could have a peak at those 116 pages) Anyway, I'm of the opinion that the translation was very dynamic and fluid. This dynamic method could be influenced by Joseph's spiritual maturity, his surroundings, how hungry he was, if Emma was mad at him, did Oliver brush his teeth...etc. The real question was whether or not the work product also changed with his ability to "translate?" I think so. But I'm not married to that idea.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Narrator writes:

Except you already said that "And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God."

Because strict atheism was not even a concept in the worldview of the Psalmist, it seems quite impossible that it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic. Unless, by 'historically', you mean more historically after the time of the Psalmist.

Yes, it seems to me that the Psalmist was not making a statement that was strictly atheistic, although, others, in various periods of time following the writing of the Psalm, it was interpreted to be strictly atheistic.

Of course. But we aren't talking about how others later interpreted it. We are talking about (at least that is what I assume we were) whether Psalm 14 is evidence of ancient strict atheists.

And it seems to me that you have entirely missed my point - which is, that those discussing and interpreting Psalm 14 as strictly atheistic, are themselves evidence for a strict ancient atheism. Whether or not that strict atheism is even realized in the population is also largely immaterial to the fact that it is discussed conceptually.

Unless we are talking about the Psalmists world view--which is exactly what I am talking about.

And I am suggesting that the world view of the Psalmist is completely irrelevant unless our goal is only to discuss the question of whether or not the original author of the Psalm understood a notion of strict atheism. This hasn't so far seemed to me to be the case.

Which you earlier said it wasn't: "And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God."

This isn't the same thing. I can say that the text seems to be less than a declaration of strict atheism while at the same time lending itself to an interpretation which contains a strict atheism. In other words, it has been labeled a practical atheism because it clearly has a denial of some sort with regards to God. It doesn't have the same kind of support for your alternatives. It doesn't have any explicit recognition of deity at all (there is no hint of deism there). Thus while not a statement of strict atheism, it lends itself to that kind of interpretation, which is evident from later interpretations, and so the reason for the term "practical atheism". Practical atheism is not deism. And, as far as Korihor goes, the text is probably open to a number of interpretations - one of which is the strict atheism that Will suggests.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

As far as the translation of the text goes, I see Joseph entirely (and exclusively) as a reader of the text. I am a proponent of a very tight translation.

[William Schryver]

As far as the translation of the text goes, I see Joseph entirely (and exclusively) as a reader of the text. I am a proponent of a very tight translation.

I'm with you on this--for reasons that actually go far beyond Skousen's findings.

[Chris Smith]

As far as the translation of the text goes, I see Joseph entirely (and exclusively) as a reader of the text. I am a proponent of a very tight translation.

Isn't this a change for you, Ben? I seem to recall you arguing for a more Ostlerian approach in the past.

[the narrator]

And, as far as Korihor goes, the text is probably open to a number of interpretations - one of which is the strict atheism that Will suggests.

Except for his belief in angels and the devil.