Mormon Times Article on If/And Conditionals

[Zakuska]

This is precisely the kind of fundamentalistic thinking we find very common among critics.

Here is a perfect case study in God's communications with man.

Acts 9

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And its contradiction...

Acts 22: 9

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Now remember, the Standard Christian apologetic of this contradiction is that they "heard" the sound of the voice but they did not "understand" what the voice said.

See here for example: http://www.onenesspe....com/acts97.htm

So apparently... God IS a poor communicator, and men can hear his voice and still not understand it.

[Daniel Peterson]

So which is it? And what does it matter if it is capitalized? The characters on the Anthon transcript prove that if this "script" truly existed at all in Ancient America, then it was an entirely different language, apart from Egyptian, meaning it deserves to be capitalized as languages should be.

You seem to be confusing script and language. They are quite distinct. Hebrew texts have been written in Arabic letters, Arabic texts in Roman letters (e.g., Maltese), Aramaic texts in Egyptian characters, Egyptian texts in Greek letters (e.g., Coptic), and so forth. It's done all the time. In fact, I think I'll do it now:

??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???????. "This is English written in Greek letters."

Haadhihi hiyya jumla

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith was a programmer, as in computers.

Now see- there you go! I didn't even know they had computers back then!

[Daniel Peterson]

In what sense are the if/and conditionals not erroneous? Because they were translated that way on purpose, or because if/and conditionals are not an erroneous way to translate Hebrew into English, or some other reason?

Because, not knowing the goal of the agent responsible for them, we cannot know whether the agent achieved the goal or missed it.

[mfbukowski]

In Mormon 9:32

[Zakuska]

Now see- there you go! I didn't even know they had computers back then!

Computers must date back to Nephi's time then.

All "reformed egyptian" really is is a encoding scheme.

Such as UTF-8 or UTF 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

[Fifth Columnist]

Because, not knowing the goal of the agent responsible for them, we cannot know whether the agent achieved the goal or missed it.

So this means that the agent, i.e., God (or his translation department), must have either purposely or inadvertently included the if/and conditionals, which constitute a mistranslation of Hebrew to English.

If you find this apologetic persuasive, then so be it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Notice:

I'm opting out of this conversation for an indefinite period. Perhaps I'll be back later tonight. Perhaps I won't.

I've spent too much time on it today, and other much more important and pressing things are crying out for attention.

Actually, I'm just a coward who flees controversies and cannot abide being contradicted. This must be true; I read it on another board just a few minutes ago. I'll probably have all of you banned. That's my only hope of saving face.

[Zakuska]

If you want to make that assertion, if you believe it's empirically-grounded and reasonable, why don't you present it in a peer-reviewed journal?

Because he's "teasing" us Dr. P

Now THAT was hillarious!

[Calm]

So this means that the agent, i.e., God (or his translation department), must have either purposefully or inadvertently included the if/and conditionals, which constitute a mistranslation of Hebrew to English.

If you find this apologetic persuasive, then so be it.

If it was done on purpose, it would hardly be a mistranslation, would it?

[Daniel Peterson]

So this means that the agent, i.e., God (or his translation department), must have either purposefully or inadvertently included the if/and conditionals, which constitute a mistranslation of Hebrew to English.

If you find this apologetic persuasive, then so be it.

Oh, the tavern doors are swinging. Inviting me. Luring me. One last drink.

That is not quite my "apologetic."

My apologetic is simply this: "If/and" conditionals occur in Hebrew but not in English. Yet they occur in the English Book of Mormon, a text that purports to emerge from a Hebrew cultural background. Like Semiticisms in John and/or Matthew, these constitute apparent prima facie evidences of a Hebrew or Hebrew-like Urtext, which accords with the text's self-description.

Simply that. Nothing more. No grand unified theory of translation, no firm knowledge of divine motive, no Illiterate God Theory. A poor thing, as Achilles might say -- but mine own. (Actually, though, it's Royal Skousen's.)

[Glenn101]

Computers must date back to Nephi's time then.

All "reformed egyptian" really is is a encoding scheme.

Such as UTF-8 or UTF 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

Of course there were computers back in Nephi's day. Ever heard of the abacus? It dates back way before Nephi. And how about the Antikythera Mechanism? The one that has been found dates to around 150 B.C. But it is a full blown working model. Well, it was. Surely if there were computers such as the Antikythera Mechanism that were only found out about in the twentieth century; knowledge lost for centuries, maybe it is not so far fetched to think that there were computers in Joseph Smith's day, well hidden of course, that were programmed in languages which used if/then conditionals. Maybe we should reexamine the Book of Mormon as computer code? (I just bit my tongue.)

Glenn

[Brade]

A parallel situation might be this: Suppose that a scholar is combing the Greek of the gospel of Matthew for evidence that that gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. She finds what she considers a Semiticism -- that is, an expression that seems to be bad Greek but accords with a known Semitic idiom. She searches high and low for Greek parallels in the koin

[Daniel Peterson]

I finished one of the major items on my list much more quickly than I had anticipated -- gee, I'm good -- and so, like a dog to its . . . whatever, I'm back. Briefly.

I'm with you if you're saying the all those possibilities have nothing directly to do with the question of whether what the scholar considers a semiticism is something that looks strikingly like a semiticism. I'm just trying to get this clear, so bear with me. It almost seemed as if you were saying that those possibilities have nothing to do with whether what the scholar considers a semiticism is a semiticism. If that's what you mean, then I don't follow. Certainly, those possibilities do have something important to do with that. Since, if, say, one of the possibilities is in fact the case, then what appears to be a semiticism is not a semiticism. If I'm missing something here, then help me out. And, sorry, I'm coming to this thread late, and sometimes it's unclear to me precisely what the claim is. With respect to the Book of Mormon, is it "those are semiticisms" or is it something like "those appear to be semiticisms"?

We can never, I think, definitively say with absolute 100% certainty, that x is a Semiticism. We can say that it seems extremely likely to be one, but, historically speaking, few non-trivial claims can be established with mathematical certainty. We're typically dealing with induction (and limited, spotty data) rather than with deduction from fully-formed and perfectly clear premises.

I have to admit that I'm not quite sure that I understand you. But I'll give it a try.

That an act occurred is, it seems to me, usually a very clearly distinct fact from the motivation for the act. Thus, for instance, we might be absolutely certain that Franky shot Johnny. Three hundred eyewitnesses saw the deed, Franky's fingerprints were all over the murder weapon (which was registered to Franky), and etc. However, since Officer Krupke fatally shot Franky right after Franky shot Johnny, and since Franky confided in nobody and left no note, we may never understand the motive. Perhaps there will be some clues, even some fairly well-founded conjectures, but perhaps not. The lack of a motive for Franky's action, however, in no way casts doubt upon the fact that Franky shot Johnny, or, for that matter, that Johnny was shot by Franky, or, to make it even more abstract, that there was a fatal shooting.

Likewise, that an expression in Matthew or John is a Semiticism can be established to a high degree of confidence without our knowing a single thing about the translator, his motives, his knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew and/or Aramaic, his state of mind at the time of his translation, or anything else of that kind.

That "if/and" conditionals occur in Hebrew is certain, as is the fact that the Book of Mormon claims to have emerged from a group of Hebrews. That they occur in the English Book of Mormon is reasonably well established. That they do not otherwise occur in English is pretty securely established. All these facts, taken together, suggest -- though they do not prove -- that the Book of Mormon, in this case, manifests a Semiticism that is consistent with its claimed origin. We can affirm this without knowing anything about the translator at all.

Does that make sense? Does it help?

[Fifth Columnist]

If it was done on purpose, it would hardly be a mistranslation, would it?

I am using "mistranslation" because the result of the translation makes no sense (if/and conditionals in English don't makes sense). You and DCP seem to be using "mistranslation" to mean the intent of the translator. The way I use the term, a mistranslation is present regardless what the translator's intent was. The way you and DCP use the term, it is not a mistranslation even if the resulting English makes no sense so long as that was what the translator (God in this case) intended. When you read my past arguments, please do it with the understanding that I am using "mistranslation" in this fashion. I will try to make this distinction explicit in future posts so that you and others won't become unnecessarily confused.

[Fifth Columnist]

My apologetic is simply this: "If/and" conditionals occur in Hebrew but not in English. Yet they occur in the English Book of Mormon, a text that purports to emerge from a Hebrew cultural background. Like Semiticisms in John and/or Matthew, these constitute apparent prima facie evidences of a Hebrew or Hebrew-like Urtext, which accords with the text's self-description.

Simply that. Nothing more. No grand unified theory of translation, no firm knowledge of divine motive, no Illiterate God Theory. A poor thing, as Achilles might say -- but mine own. (Actually, though, it's Royal Skousen's.)

I'm not asking for a grand unified theory of translation. I would just like ANY plausible explanation that accounts for who conducted the translation. So far three options have been put forth for translators: God, God's translation department, or Joseph Smith. I think you rightly recognize the latter one is DOA for this particular apologetic argument. That leaves God or his translation department. Unfortunately, those are almost as problematic.

[Daniel Peterson]

You and DCP seem to be using "mistranslation" to mean the intent of the translator. The way I use the term, a mistranslation is present regardless what the translator's intent was. The way you and DCP use the term,

I don't typically use the term mistranslation for this at all. Have I used it here in this thread? In the column? If so, I can qualify what I intended. But if not, if I'm not using the term, then I'm not using it to mean anything, either.

it is not a mistranslation even if the resulting English makes no sense so long as that was what the translator (God in this case) intended.

I'm not aware of anything, by the way, to suggest that the first decade or so of readers of the Book of Mormon -- during which time the book converted people at a high rate -- were unable to understand it, nor even unable to understand the relevant verses ("the resulting English makes no sense"). I can understand them.

I'm not asking for a grand unified theory of translation. I would just like ANY plausible explanation that accounts for who conducted the translation. So far three options have been put forth for translators: God, God's translation department, or Joseph Smith. I think you rightly recognize the latter one is DOA for this particular apologetic argument. That leaves God or his translation department. Unfortunately, those are almost as problematic.

They're not problematic for me, and I don't feel any need (or ability) to choose between them. There is insufficient data. The answer is underdetermined.

I don't agree, by the way, that Joseph Smith's being the inspired translator would make the argument DOA. If I a sentence in German word-order translate, that has little or nothing with my English to do. I speak not English on this way. It still reflects the underlying German.

[LeSellers]

Joseph saw words appear in front of his eyes in English, already translated.

He saw, as you say, "words appear in front of his eyes". That's not at all the same thing as his seeing a translation appear in front of his eyes.

As I interpret the Whitmer (not an eye-witness, btw) to which you allude, Joseph saw words like proper names (e.g., "Moroni" and "Kishkumen") and, perhaps some passages of particular significance, but not the entirety of the translation. For this, he got images and feelings about the text, which he gave to Oliver Cowdery to write.

If your interpretation were correct, Joseph would have had no need for a scribe at all. He could have written the manuscript himself. But having a scribe write as he struggled with the wording makes sense in a way that your scenario does not.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Now see- there you go! I didn't even know they had computers back then!

Check out Charles Babbage and his Difference Engine and Analytical Engine. Of course back then, there was only one programmer: Ada, Lady Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron.

Joseph Smith had no connection with Babbage, but, of course, there was an internet connection in the Palmyra Public Library.

Lehi

[Fifth Columnist]

I don't agree, by the way, that Joseph Smith's being the inspired translator would make the argument DOA. If I a sentence in German word-order translate, that has little or nothing with my English to do. I speak not English on this way. It still reflects the underlying German.

I didn't say "inspired translator." My point was that Joseph Smith did not have the ability, without God, to translate anything, which is a point with which I think you would agree. Thus, Joseph Smith as translator is DOA. Therefore, any translating that took place must have come from God, hence the "inspired" qualification you added to "translator."

[Fifth Columnist]

They're not problematic for me, and I don't feel any need (or ability) to choose between them. There is insufficient data. The answer is underdetermined.

Are you saying we can't narrow down who conducted the translation to God or one or more people in His heavenly host? Who else could have possibly done it?

[Daniel Peterson]

I didn't say "inspired translator." My point was that Joseph Smith did not have the ability, without God, to translate anything, which is a point with which I think you would agree. Thus, Joseph Smith as translator is DOA. Therefore, any translating that took place must have come from God, hence the "inspired" qualification you added to "translator."

But, of course, for me it's not an either/or. Joseph Smith's capacities, limitations, culture, mood, etc. could easily influence even a divinely inspired translation, just as Isaiah's educational background, culture, language, personality, and the like makes his prophecy different from, say, Ezekiel's.

So it's not sufficient to say that "God did it." God works through and with human materials. So I believe, anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Notice:

I'm opting out of this conversation for an indefinite period. Perhaps I'll be back later tonight. Perhaps I won't.

I've spent too much time on it today, and other much more important and pressing things are crying out for attention.

Actually, I'm just a coward who flees controversies and cannot abide being contradicted. This must be true; I read it on another board just a few minutes ago. I'll probably have all of you banned. That's my only hope of saving face.

I can't imagine how anything could be more pressing, unless it's perhaps combing that mop of thick wavy hair of yours, since continuing this conversation is about as productive as perhaps prodding a perished pony.

Besides, how can God be a translator if he is illiterate?

[Fifth Columnist]

But, of course, for me it's not an either/or. Joseph Smith's capacities, limitations, culture, mood, etc. could easily influence even a divinely inspired translation, just as Isaiah's educational background, culture, language, personality, and the like makes his prophecy different from, say, Ezekiel's.

Okay then, if Joseph Smith's capacities, limitations, culture, mood, etc. produced the if/and conditionals, how are they evidence of an underlying Hebrew text?

[mfbukowski]

Does that make sense? Does it help?

I think the assumption that he is in this to have it make sense is...... well, you know what they say about assumptions.