Cognate accusatives

[maklelan]

That fact that the American Israelites were shown baptism and told the Greek name of Jesus and the Palestinian Israelites weren't is a huge red flag.

Only if you assert that God couldn't reveal Christ's mission to a specific group of people and not to another. If you are going at this from a viewpoint that rejects the notion of the supernatural altogether then your criticism is problematic. You would be trying to show the book does not succeed on its own terms while denying one of its terms.

I don't think it is valid to say that "just because the Palestinian Jews were not revealed these things, doesn't mean that the American Jews could not have been told these things". Especially when there is no trace of Christianity in the Americas before the European settlement.

No trace of post-Enlightenment Christianity, but certainly you're aware of the Conquistador accounts of a false Christianity being practiced upon their arrival. The appeal to a Catholic apologetic rhetoric in those texts hardly accounts for their assertion that they burned hundreds of thousands of texts because the devil was there preaching a different kind of Christianity. How many other texts do you think have survived from BCE Mesoamerica?

the far more likely explanation is that the text was invented in the 19th century. In the Bible we have no muddling of Hebrew and Greek scriptures. They are separate and linguistically distinguishable. We don't have this in the BoM. What we find is a mixing of the two testaments.

Because the text was putatively translated by a 19th century Protestant. The target text is going to be bursting at the seams with that worldview, especially when the translator is someone with no training.

the word "church" as it is used in the NT refers to the organization of believers in Christ. This could not have been used in OT times before Christ appeared. The Hebrew word for congregation etc could not mean church.

That's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not a young 19th century Protestant thought "church" was an appropriate translation.

Further, there are yet more errors in the text. The King James grammatical rules are not followed in the BoM. For e.g. the word "have" is not found in the King James Bible. Rather, "hath" is used. What do we find in the BoM? "Have" is certainly used there. Why are the grammatical rules of King James English not followed in the BoM?

Because there are no such things as KJV "grammatical rules," and because Smith was only trying to imitate scriptural-sounding vernacular.

Either you translate using the KJV English properly or you use the English of your day - you can't have a mixture of the two.

Where is that written?

The likely reason why we see these grammatical errors: the authors of the BoM were simply ignorant of this.

Ignorant of the rule prohibiting mixing the two? I have to admit, I've never been apprised of it either, and I've spent quite some time studying Bible translation. Where is this rule found?

[canterdogs]

Because using the same word can be redundant.

And a young 19th century Protestant farmer probably isn't concerned with the minutiae of translation equivalency. Likely he's just going to pick stuff that sounds biblical to him. That's hardly evidence that he's not translating from a real document.

And it's a myopic point. "The Messiah" is perfectly natural, and for a 19th century Protestant, "Jesus Christ" is going to be more natural later in the same verse than "Jesus the Messiah." It's redundant and departs from the more formulaic equivalent.

A few things to note here. According to testimonies of how the BoM was translated, Joseph had is head in a hat and the word would appear to him. So, apparently, he had no say in how the BoM was translated. He was simply taking directions from the Lord. Further, testimonies confirm, that the next word in the translation would only appear if the previous word had been translated correctly. therefore there is no room for error, there is even no room for incorporating a Protestant world view. Why would God not simply provide a literal translation?

If the translator was concerned about reptition, why the constant use of the phrase "it came to pass"? Further, how could the author of Nephi say that His name would be Jesus Christ? His name is simply Jesus. Christ is His title.

[canterdogs]

It's clear that one can make all sorts of claims about the translation of the BoM. The fact is that we don't have any manuscript in the original language to examine. This is a major problem in my opinion. All we can go on is the English text, and there are many anachronisms there. There are many things that don't make sense at all.

[canterdogs]

There are grammatical rules for the kind of English used in the KJV. The BoM is a dogs breakfast in that regard.

[maklelan]

No I haven't. But its clear that if "Christ" and "Messiah" have the same meaning,

They don't have the same meaning. Meaning derives primarily from usage in context. One word was used by one culture, and another by another. They were not used to mean the exact same thing diachronically to each culture. Their meanings overlap more on an etymological level than on a level of usage. Using both terms appeals to the different socio-religious memories embedded in each, and varies the vernacular for the sake of aesthetics. There's nothing wrong with it, and I suggest you learn something about translation theory before lecturing others on it.

and they must represent the same reformed Egyptian word (note the "if/and clause I have used in this sentence lol).

Why must they represent the same Reformed Egyptian word? Several different words in English are appropriate equivalences. Why not Reformed Egyptian?

Why then are they translated differently? This doesn't happen in the Bible.

Oh, it absolutely does. Look through any Biblical Hebrew or Greek lexicon and you'll see multiple possibilities for each word. The more common the word, the more things it can mean. Sometimes the different English equivalents are cognates, as well.

[canterdogs]

What about Joseph Smith's blundering use of Elijah and Elias (the same person) in the D&C. Apparently he saw two separate people named Elijah and Elias. But these two are the same people! How many more blunders are there?

[maklelan]

There are grammatical rules for the kind of English used in the KJV. The BoM is a dogs breakfast in that regard.

There are? Show me where the grammatical rules have been delineated in scholarship.

[maklelan]

What about Joseph Smith's blundering use of Elijah and Elias (the same person) in the D&C. Apparently he saw two separate people named Elijah and Elias. But these two are the same people! How many more blunders are there?

Certainly you're aware of the apologetic responses to that point. Care to explain precisely what about those responses is inadequate?

[WalkerW]

Also care to explain why you suddenly shifted from the Christ/Messiah discussion to Elijah/Elias? I don't think you were quite done with the first.

[canterdogs]

They don't have the same meaning. Meaning derives primarily from usage in context. One word was used by one culture, and another by another. They were not used to mean the exact same thing diachronically to each culture. Their meanings overlap more on an etymological level than on a level of usage. Using both terms appeals to the different socio-religious memories embedded in each, and varies the vernacular for the sake of aesthetics. There's nothing wrong with it, and I suggest you learn something about translation theory before lecturing others on it.

Why must they represent the same Reformed Egyptian word? Several different words in English are appropriate equivalences. Why not Reformed Egyptian?

Oh, it absolutely does. Look through any Biblical Hebrew or Greek lexicon and you'll see multiple possibilities for each word. The more common the word, the more things it can mean. Sometimes the different English equivalents are cognates, as well.

This is all speculation. there is absolutely nothing we can go by to check what you have said about the reformed Egyptian translation. There are so many inconsistencies in the English version.

What about the meaning of Elohim and Jehovah? According to LDS theology, they are separate people. But when we read Exodus 6:2-3 we read:

²And God (Elohim) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: ³And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

I.e. they are not separate people, but the same person.

[canterdogs]

Certainly you're aware of the apologetic responses to that point. Care to explain precisely what about those responses is inadequate?

I am aware of the apologetic argument. It's simply a case of what you think is more plausible. Do you go with an explanation that Elias (Greek form of Elijah) was a prophet at the time of Abraham (although the Greek language was not even developed at this time) OR do you go with the explanation that Joseph Smith was simply ignorant that Elijah and Elias refer to the same person. I think the latter is by far the more plausible explanation. There is absolutely no basis for the former explanation. It smacks of an apology after the mistake - a cover up.

[canterdogs]

Also care to explain why you suddenly shifted from the Christ/Messiah discussion to Elijah/Elias? I don't think you were quite done with the first.

I am showing all the mistakes of Joseph Smith. I know there is an apologetic argument for all of his mistakes and that LDS instinctively believe the apologists. I am simply throwing them all out there to show the depth of his errors.

[WalkerW]

What about the meaning of Elohim and Jehovah? According to LDS theology, they are separate people. But when we read Exodus 6:2-3 we read:

I.e. they are not separate people, but the same person.

You will lose this debate with Maklelan. Badly.

[WalkerW]

I am showing all the mistakes of Joseph Smith. I know there is an apologetic argument for all of his mistakes and that LDS instinctively believe the apologists. I am simply throwing them all out there to show the depth of his errors.

In other words, instead of dealing adequately with each "mistake," you'd rather take a shotgun approach. Fantastic.

[maklelan]

It's clear that one can make all sorts of claims about the translation of the BoM.

And one can be informed about it or can not be informed about it.

The fact is that we don't have any manuscript in the original language to examine. This is a major problem in my opinion. All we can go on is the English text, and there are many anachronisms there. There are many things that don't make sense at all.

But that hardly means there was no Vorlage and that the target text is not a translation at all. A current theory in Septuagint studies holds that the Septuagint was composed not as a free-standing Greek translation, but as a lexical aid to the Hebrew. One of the main supports scholars like Pietersma and Wright appeal to is the fact that the Greek translation in many parts makes no sense without an appeal to the Hebrew. This isn't accepted by the majority of LXX scholars, though. Most recognize that the target text makes no sense because the translators either couldn't make sense of the Vorlage, or couldn't accurately transmit the sense of the Vorlage. Lack of cogency in a translation doesn't at all lead to the conclusion that it is not a translation at all.

[canterdogs]

In other words, instead of dealing adequately with each "mistake," you'd rather take a shotgun approach. Fantastic.

LDS are simply going to stick with the apologetic argument no matter how far fetched and no matter how many tenuous assumptions are made. That might be ok if there were only a few mistakes. My point is that when such mistakes are so prevalent that apologists must make tenuous arguments all of the time, this suggests to me that there really is no basis for the claims of the BoM.

[TAO]

LDS are simply going to stick with the apologetic argument no matter how far fetched and no matter how many tenuous assumptions are made. That might be ok if there were only a few mistakes. My point is that when such mistakes are so prevalent that apologists must make tenuous arguments all of the time, this suggests to me that there really is no basis for the claims of the BoM.

Just as those who are attacking are going to stick with the attacking argument no matter how far fetched no matter how many incorrect assumptions are made. That might be ok, if there was only a few mistakes. However, when such mistakes are so prevalent that anti's must make outdated, unresearched, or blanket arguments all the time, this suggest to me that there is really no basis for their objection to the BoM.e

Anti's make the same mistakes apologists do, believe it or not. That's why I make it a standard not to trust anti's site's, because they lack on things usually.

Ultimately, as I said, looking to prove or disprove the BoM isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not provable nor disprovable. You need to look to faith, not to proof. And ultimately, this discussion is turning into an argument, and going nowhere. It's getting contentious, and I don't like it.

[WalkerW]

LDS are simply going to stick with the apologetic argument no matter how far fetched and no matter how many tenuous assumptions are made. That might be ok if there were only a few mistakes. My point is that when such mistakes are so prevalent that apologists must make tenuous arguments all of the time, this suggests to me that there really is no basis for the claims of the BoM.

It isn't a point when you throw out random examples and declare them "mistakes" before adequately dealing with them. Several fallacious arguments put together don't make a sound one. As for your Elohim/Jehovah problem, I wrote this to an individual who declared the Bible was "infallible":

I'm actually quite baffled that you say the texts are consistent, especially after I gave you some examples in our face-to-face chat of how they are not. Remember Deut. 32:8-9? The MT of vs. 8 reads "sons of Israel," the LXX reads "angels of God," and the Qumran reads "sons of God." Which is correct? The Qumran is the earliest Hebrew version we have and it uses the same exact terminology that we find in Ugaritic literature:

"The members of the assembly at Ugarit are unambiguously classified as 'ilm ("gods"), bn 'il ("sons of El"), and bn 'ilm ("sons of the gods"). Specifically, in the Keret Epic, the Canaanite chief deity El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses its members as either 'ilm ("gods") or bny ("my sons")." (Michael Heiser, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," Bibliotecha Sacra 157, January-March 2001)

In the earliest Hebrew version of Deut. 32:8-9, Yahweh is depicted as the God of Israel and a son of El Elyon (God Most High), not El Elyon himself. The LXX reworks the "sons of God" to mean "angels of God," thus demoting them from the status of deity. The further change to "sons of Israel" would be an attempt to completely move away from the concept of multiple deities (though the MT could have been a scribal error if the original reading was "sons of Bull El." See Jan Joosten, "A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8," Vetus Testamentum 57:4, 2007). Even Deut. 32:43 has similar problems:

MT: "O nations, rejoice His people. For He'll avenge the blood of His servants, and wreak vengeance on His foes, and will cleanse His people's land."

LXX: "O heavens, rejoice with Him. Bow to Him, all angels of God. O nations, rejoice with His people and let all angels of God strengthen themselves in Him. For He'll avenge the blood of His sons, be vengeful and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on His foes, requite those who reject Him, and the Lord will cleanse His people's land."

4QDeutq: "O heavens, rejoice with Him. Bow to him, all you gods. For He'll avenge the blood of His sons, and wreak vengeance on His foes, requite those who reject Him, and will cleanse His people's land."

These are big differences. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes from the LXX in Heb. 1:6. The Qumran version fits more with Ps. 97:7. Which is it? Israelites, angels, or gods? Did the early Israelites believe in other gods? Based on these texts, they believed in a multiplicity of gods, El being the Most High and his son Yahweh being the God of Israel. Yahweh was later conflated with El Elyon, which is evidenced from other texts as well. For example, Gen. 14:18 states that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God or El Elyon. In vs. 22, the LORD or Yahweh is identified as the Most High. It becomes Yahweh El Elyon. The addition of Yahweh's name is not found in the LXX, the Peshitta or the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon. Also, originally it was "El Elyon, begetter [Heb quoneh] of heaven and earth." Later, it became "Yahweh El Elyon, maker [Gk ktizo] of heaven and earth." The procreative and sexual aspects of God were suppressed here also.

I know Maklelan can say much more about this subject. I strongly suggest reading Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press: 2001). Does this count or is it too "apologetic?"

[maklelan]

This is all speculation. there is absolutely nothing we can go by to check what you have said about the reformed Egyptian translation.

And thus your absolute statements are rather naive.

There are so many inconsistencies in the English version.

And yet you've not been able to point to any that remain inconsistencies under a better understanding of translation theory.

What about the meaning of Elohim and Jehovah? According to LDS theology, they are separate people. But when we read Exodus 6:2-3 we read:

I.e. they are not separate people, but the same person.

And according to Deut 32:8-9 (the original version, as attested in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls), they are different people:

. . .he separated the people according to the number of the sons of God (Elohim), and Yhwh's portion was Jacob . . .

Yhwh is portrayed as one of the "sons of Elohim" in that verse. The two would ultimately be conflated in early Israelite theology, and they wouldn't be decoupled again until Joseph Smith's day. A century later, biblical scholars would begin to recognize (thanks to more critical (meaning objective, not skeptical) methodologies and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) that this was the case. Psalm 82 is another vestige of this archaic distinction. See my discussions hereand here. The verse you appealed to is actually evidence in favor of my conclusion and not yours, since Gen 4:26 explains that people began to call on the name Yhwh two generations after Adam. Why does one text say they knew his name that early and another say they didn't know his name until it was revealed to Moses? We know now that they were originally separate deities, and Exod 6:3 is an attempt to explain why early Israelites wouldn't have known of this high god named Yhwh. The text from Genesis comes from a later time period when the conflation was fully developed and they were unaware that writing in Yhwh's name as early as Enos didn't really fit.

[maklelan]

LDS are simply going to stick with the apologetic argument no matter how far fetched and no matter how many tenuous assumptions are made.

And critics are going to continue to lob whatever they can at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. When a more informed position shows that nothing is really sticking, they will simply bark about how the apologists are wrong just because. This isn't my first rodeo.

That might be ok if there were only a few mistakes. My point is that when such mistakes are so prevalent that apologists must make tenuous arguments all of the time, this suggests to me that there really is no basis for the claims of the BoM.

But you've yet to be able to point to a single mistake that's legitimate. Every one has been shown to be the result of an uninformed perspective.

[canterdogs]

And critics are going to continue to lob whatever they can at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. When a more informed position shows that nothing is really sticking, they will simply bark about how the apologists are wrong just because. This isn't my first rodeo.

But you've yet to be able to point to a single mistake that's legitimate. Every one has been shown to be the result of an uninformed perspective.

I haven't intended to be absolute. I'm trying to say that when I go by the balance of evidence (as I perceive it), it seems to me that the BoM is not what it claims to be. Now you may say that the evidence points strongly in favor of the BoM. You are an expert on these things and I am not. But when an apparently ancient text appears out of the blue as the BoM did, I think that people are entitled to be suspicious. And on reading it, I have found oddities - oddities that have required extensive apologetic explanations. I'm also aware that apologetic arguments can be made for just about anything. It's also clear that one can never get to the bottom of these things or "prove" the BoM to be true or false. But you can make a judgment about it based on reading it and comparing it to other documents. The fact that apologists appear to be straining to explain the linguistic evidence, the archaeology, the historicity etc does not, in my opinion, bode well for the BoM.

[canterdogs]

It is also apparent that LDS apologists don't consider any criticism to be valid.

Perhaps you can point out to me what you think the weak points of the BoM are, if any.

[maklelan]

I haven't intended to be absolute. I'm trying to say that when I go by the balance of evidence (as I perceive it), it seems to me that the BoM is not what it claims to be.

And yet you seem reluctant to recognize that a more informed position might alter the balance of that evidence. Rather than respond to my concerns with your assertions, you've just abandoned them to hurl something else in my direction.

Now you may say that the evidence points strongly in favor of the BoM.

I didn't say it points strongly in favor of the Book of Mormon. I said the evidence you produced is misinformed and in some cases comes out supportive of the Book of Mormon rather than against it.

You are an expert on these things and I am not. But when an apparently ancient text appears out of the blue as the BoM did, I think that people are entitled to be suspicious.

Of course.

And on reading it, I have found oddities - oddities that have required extensive apologetic explanations.

Have you read the entire Book of Mormon?

I'm also aware that apologetic arguments can be made for just about anything. It's also clear that one can never get to the bottom of these things or "prove" the BoM to be true or false. But you can make a judgment about it based on reading it and comparing it to other documents. The fact that apologists appear to be straining to explain the linguistic evidence, the archaeology, the historicity etc does not, in my opinion, bode well for the BoM.

I don't see too much strain. It exists in some places, but the majority of the straining is only found where somebody misunderstands what the book purports to be or what phenomena drive the processes that are putatively responsible for its composition.

[maklelan]

It is also apparent that LDS apologists don't consider any criticism to be valid.

Untrue.

Perhaps you can point out to me what you think the weak points of the BoM are, if any.

I think the anaphoric nature of the translation and the numerous unseen variables at work between the Vorlage and the target text make it presumptuous to try to impose a paradigm upon the book in a way that renders any perceived inconsistency particularly problematic. On the other hand, the issues that require more consideration, in my opinion, are the quotations of Deutero-Isaiah and the production of steel swords.

[canterdogs]

First of all to respond to your concerns would require more study. I readily concede this. But not everyone can be a Biblical scholar and I probably won't ever have the same knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures as you do. So I've got to make a judgement call. There are knowledgeable LDS scholars such as yourself. But there are also knowledgeable Protestant and Catholic scholars who would reject you interpretation. I don't think the LDS arguments stack up. I think this is a reasonable position. I haven't tried to pretend that some verses are difficult to exegete or explain - they clearly are. However, I don't think the answer is to look towards some modern day prophet - but to study to scriptures and trust that the Spirit will lead you. From my reading of the Bible, I just don't think Mormonism is congruent with the religion taught in the Bible. Mormons don't have a monopoly on the testimony of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does lead me in my study of the scriptures and I can not accept Mormonism on this basis.

I can't say that i've read the BoM from cover to cover. But I have read large sections of it.

When i say strain, i basically mean that often there is a plain interpretation of a verse or scripture. Often LDS apologists have to bypass this plain interpretation and seek some other new explanation that no one ever heard of before Mormonism. McConkie's explanation for Joseph's apparent Elijah/Elias blunder is a case in point.