Hughes Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Whether Joseph was lead or just '"found" the plates doesn't seem relevant to the question of how to verify an accurate translation, externally. It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).It is very relevant unless you believe God buys lottery tickets.How someone gets something has a connection to the veracity of the translation of the thing in question? Please explain.
Hughes Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Without the originals, by Hughes' standards we should always describe them as the "alleged copies" and accept that there is no way to verify that they have anything to do with the original text. Any work we do with them as if they were the original text is therefore based in "blind faith" (by Hughes' standards as he has described them so far...he can correct if I've interpreted him wrong).I just read that there was an alleged copy of a screenplay of a highly anticipated movie that was supposedly 'leaked'. The producers denied the claim, state that the screenplay is not connected with their actual original screenplay....but since they refuse to release the actual screenplay so we can have a hands on, eye to text comparison, how do we know they are not lying in order to keep the mystery (and therefore excitement) high surrounding their project? So the alleged copy may or may not be the actual screenplay, there is no reason to suggest that those accepting it as the real one are any less realistic than those who trash it as a fake. Right, Hughes?Anything is better than nothing. For the BoM we have nothing. No thing. Not one thing. I truly wish we did. For the screenplay analogy, we can wager as to how close it is to the original. But we won't know until we can see the original. But, like I said, something is better than nothing. If your argument is that we can't know the copies are accurate until we can see the original, I might agree, but I would also say that if there are a more sources or more copies, then the possibility of the copies being accurate are greater. If we are forced to rely on only one source, then the risk for it being an error is greater and it's much more difficult to analyze, because with different sources can be checked against each other.
cdowis Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 hughes:For the BoM we have nothing. No thing. Not one thing. I truly wish we did. He has made a deliberate, conscious decision to ignore everything that we have posted. Is there really any point in continuing a conversation with this individual?He is mocking us. He is having a really good laugh at our expense.
Vance Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Anything is better than nothing. For the BoM we have nothing. No thing. Not one thing. I truly wish we did. What goes around, comes around.Continually ignoring the evidence presented is going to cause people to ignore you.Now, where is that ignore button.
Calm Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 I like to try and keep things simple. We disagree on a lot of issues. My basic question stems from this desire to keep things simple. Are copies better than no copies? (maybe I should insert the word, "claimed" copies)Seems to me the obvious answer is yes. And that's what we have with the Biblical text, and we don't have with the BoM.Then let's keep things very simple and also agree that a translated copy is better than no copy as well and the same rules of determining how they related to the original text should apply to both, neither or both being discarded on an academic basis solely on the basis of having no original text to compare them to, neither or both being insisted that one can only accept them on"blind faith".
Jeff K. Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 IF there was a Lehi. I can't verify that the BoM has anything what so ever to do with the gold plates. If the Bible was buried in London... your hypothetical is difficult to follow since there aren't just one "bible" but millions. And even before the Gutenberg press there were thousands. But, let's just say for that there was only one Bible and it was buried in London.... And we couldn't translate it? Is that your point? Then how would we "trace the origin back..." I'm thinking that we'd study it, don't you think? Sure would be nice to do that with the gold plates, or at least copies of it.That is incorrect. Your presume a post Gutenberg world which invalidates your position. Think about it some more, I think you will catch on to the point I am making.
Calm Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Anything is better than nothing. For the BoM we have nothing. No thing. Not one thing. I truly wish we did. Except of course the translation, which is merely a copy in another language.
Jeff K. Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Jeff K., on 14 January 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:QuoteWhether Joseph was lead or just '"found" the plates doesn't seem relevant to the question of how to verify an accurate translation, externally. It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).It is very relevant unless you believe God buys lottery tickets.How someone gets something has a connection to the veracity of the translation of the thing in question? Please explain. Finding the plates by a human act is significantly distinct from being led by God who in turn would choose the best person for the act, that is if you believe in God, or that God would use the person best suited. Meaning that the method by which the plates were found is indeed pertinent to the veracity.
Calm Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 hughes:He has made a deliberate, conscious decision to ignore everything that we have posted. Is there really any point in continuing a conversation with this individual?He is mocking us. He is having a really good laugh at our expense.Not sure about the last....if so, he's sacrificed a great deal of credibility for the laugh.I see it as a case of "invincible ignorance" (Dan Peterson's definition), with emphasis on the "ignor(e)". It is very remarkable to me he doesn't see the inconsistency problem with his logic.It's not as if there are no other criticisms of the BoM that do not entail the same problems for the Bible that he could appeal to so that he is forced to rely on a doublestandard of the most obvious type. Or why not just admit that you are dismissing the Book of Mormon as an act of faith? Nothing wrong with that.
Mortal Man Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 For example, we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts in the original language of the composition of those books, and absolutely no Reformed Egyptian manuscripts of any Book of Mormon text.Sure we do.
Mortal Man Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 What am I even looking at?A Reformed Egyptian manuscript of a Book of Mormon text.
Eldwynn Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 A Reformed Egyptian manuscript of a Book of Mormon text.But which text? What does it say? Aren't there people that can read egyptian?
Mortal Man Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 But which text?The Book of Lehi.What does it say? Remarkable things.Aren't there people that can read egyptian?Yes, here's a Rosetta Stone of sorts.
mapman Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 A Reformed Egyptian manuscript of a Book of Mormon text.You claim that this is reformed Egyptian and from the Book of Mormon. That could be, but I'm not sure of that. This document is on the back of a pagewritten by Frederick G. Williams which includes D&C 7, "Questions in English, Answers in Hebrew", and "characters on the Book of Mormon". There is a note written on the back which says "[in pencil: Revelation] G. S. L. City, April 11, 1864. This paper is in the hand writing of my father, Fred G. Williams. The characters thereon I believe to be a representation of those shown to him at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple." So no mention of reformed Egyptian, although the symbols do resemble those on the Anthon transcript. Thanks Mortal Man for posting that image, I've been unable to find a photograph of the back of that document until now.This is a Book of Mormon manuscript with reformed Egyptian:From what I've heard, it is on the same type of paper as the original manuscript. Also, why do you reference that broad-side as being "a Rosetta stone of sorts"? I don't see any way that it could help someone decipher reformed Egyptian.
Mortal Man Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Also, why do you reference that broad-side as being "a Rosetta stone of sorts"? I don't see any way that it could help someone decipher reformed Egyptian.You have to study it out in your mind and then ask the right questions. But that will only get you started; you'll need the GAEL for the bulk of it. BoM researchers have erred in ignoring the EAG documents, since Joseph filled in the lacunae with characters from the plates.
mapman Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Hey Mortal Man, I was wondering if you have a higher-quality image of the Frederick G. Williams document? There is some writing on the bottom that I'm trying to read. As best as I can make out it says: "?Enoch [word] [word] / is it as [word] writing as it is written / [word] him [word] [word] [word] / it is as [word] [word] [word] [word] [word] [word] [word]".Thanks.
Mortal Man Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Hey Mortal Man, I was wondering if you have a higher-quality image of the Frederick G. Williams document? There is some writing on the bottom that I'm trying to read. As best as I can make out it says: "?Enoch [word] [word] / is it as [word] writing as it is written / [word] him [word] [word] [word] / it is as [word] [word] [word] [word] [word] [word] [word]".Thanks.That's all I have. You have to buy the BYU Studies DVDs to get higher quality.
Vance Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Mosiah 14 quotes Isaiah 53 from verse 1 right through the end of the chapter, introducing this extended quotation from Isaiah explicitly as such in the first part of Mosiah 14:1. However, biblical scholars generally seem to agree that the literary unit of Isaiah begins with Isaiah 52:13 and runs through the end of chapter 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), thus including the last three verses of chapter 52. (I say "generally," but in fact I have never seen any scholarly or academic commentary or reference work take any other position.) It is in Isaiah 52:13 that the figure of this unit is identified by God as "my Servant." Perhaps the Apostles John and Paul didn't get the memo either.Mosiah 14:1 Yea, even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?Rom. 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
ebeddoulos Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Hughes,There is a group of very talented folks who believe that the New Testament was first written in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek. It is from this Greek translation that the various versions of the New Testaments of which we are familiar are derived. If the Aramaic Priority hypothesis is correct (and the arguments are quite convincing) then the New Testament is in the exact same position in which you are trying to shoehorn the Book of Mormon. The Greek New Testament is translated from the Aramaic original, just as the English Book of Mormon is translated from the Reformed Egyptian original. The primary difference is that the Book of Mormon translation into English is more recent and therefore should be more correct than the approximately 1900 year old New Testament Translation into Greek with its multitudes of changes, additions, deletions, etc. Now what were you saying about nothing?
cdowis Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 There is a group of very talented folks who believe that the New Testament was first written in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek. To be more precise, I understand this only applies to the book of Matthew. Surely you don't think Paul wrote his epistles to the Corinthians in Aramaic.
Rob Bowman Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Mortal Man,I had said that we have no extant manuscripts of any Book of Mormon text. You replied:Sure we do.I'm afraid the Frederick G. Williams paper does not qualify. A handwritten note on the paper from Ezra G. Williams states, "G. S. L. City, April 11, 1864. This paper is in the hand writing of my father, Fred G. Williams. The characters thereon I believe to be a representation of those shown to him at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple." So this paper contains characters, not a manuscript text. We aren't even told that the characters were characters found in the Book of Mormon or that they were characters of the same language as the Book of Mormon. The author of the note says that he believes that his father drew these characters as a representation of characters shown to him at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Since the Book of Mormon plates were long gone, Frederick G. Williams could not have copied the characters from the plates, and no one, to my knowledge, claims that a handwritten manuscript copy of any portion of the plates was available in 1836.And no, the Anthon transcript does not qualify, either. Again, it purports to be a copy of some characters, not a manuscript of some specific portion of text. Furthermore, as John Gee has pointed out, the Anthon transcript was produced while Joseph was in the midst of producing what became infamously known as the lost 116 pages. Those pages were not part of what we know as the Book of Mormon, since they were purportedly translated from different plates.
Rob Bowman Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Vance,John 12:38 and Romans 10:16 are quotations of one small part of the Suffering Servant passage. Mosiah 14 quotes all but the first three verses of the passage. You are ignoring Brant's argument, which sets the context of my comment.Perhaps the Apostles John and Paul didn't get the memo either.Mosiah 14:1 Yea, even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?Rom. 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
ebeddoulos Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 CDowis,Yes, that is exactly what I do think. Read THIS for a few examples both inside and outside of Matthew. Paul most likely spoke Greek, Aramaic and possibly others. However a lot of the expatriot Jews stll only spoke Aramaic. These early Jewish converts would form the core nucleus of the early Christian congregations. Think of the return home by the Pentacostal converts and the numbers mentioned in Acts 21:20. Therefore it makes perfect sense for Paul to write to them and have the bi-lingual translate his letters. That also explains why the Greek New Testament and not just Matthew, is so full of Hebraisms. This is somewhat akin to the Book of Mormon being full them as well.
Hughes Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Then let's keep things very simple and also agree that a translated copy is better than no copy as well and the same rules of determining how they related to the original text should apply to both, neither or both being discarded on an academic basis solely on the basis of having no original text to compare them to, neither or both being insisted that one can only accept them on"blind faith".We could agree that a translated copy is better than no copy at all. However, with the BoM we have no verification method to connect what was on the Gold Plates to the end translation. Since you all seem to think that comparisons with the Bible (or NT specifically) somehow bolsters the position of the BoM. Consider we have 8 authors in the NT, who are writing in Greek, or let's say 7 at least (given that Matt. might be Aramaic), a known language to everyone. Compared to the claimed "Reformed Egyptian" which isn't known to anyone and only 1 source for the translation of the whole book. So, at least with the NT we have are able to check because the languages used were known as are the places. That is incorrect. Your presume a post Gutenberg world which invalidates your position. Think about it some more, I think you will catch on to the point I am making.Since, I said, "And even before the Gutenberg press there were thousands." (of bibles) I'm not sure why you think it invalidates my position. Except of course the translation, which is merely a copy in another language.That's the claim. There's no way to verify this claim however.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.