Jump to content

The Bible and


Bill “Papa” Lee

Recommended Posts

The stories I read were not just disagreements; they were derogatory diatribes against Church leaders and Church members. There were accusations of dishonesty, of manipulation, of hatred, and of unChristlike behavior as the norm in LDS wards. They give a false impression of what the Church and its members are really like; those of us who are actually LDS and who read those stories are left wondering where on earth they came up with them.

And are in SHARP CONTRAST to the conversion stories of those joining the LDS church.

Link to post
I will say that since you apparently are not aware of the range of the definition of "translation", here is a clue for you.

From the 1828 Dictionary

I'm sorry. I assumed you were conversing with others in standard and generally accepted 21st century language and usage. I am well aware of the 1828 dictionary and its definitions. We're having a 21st century discussion using 21st century academic terms. Which is why when I mean translate, I mean translate, as in what is done to literature, not "Moving Around Of Stuff".

In all seriousness, due to how the word is used today academically - taking one extant text and expressing its extant words or ideas accurately into another language - based on a study of how Joseph worked, and a study of ancient manuscript history, this does not appear to be in any what was done with the JST. This also appears to be the general view that appears to be held by a great many of the academics employed by the Church Historical Department, among many others who dutifully and faithfully study all aspects of this material to greater understand it significance. Along with them, I view the JST as an inspired work, but not as a restoration of original manuscript readings, or even the intended thoughts of the original recorders. It has great use for the modern church in teaching new understandings of applicable doctrinal principles, but I don't think it helps us in any way understand the intent of original writers.

It's very much 'modern' revelation - and I think its value is so much greater in this respect.

Link to post

I'm sorry. I assumed you were conversing with others in standard and generally accepted 21st century language and usage.

And this somehow makes a ground breaking difference?

There is this to consider.

Definitions of translate on the Web:

* restate (words) from one language into another language; "I have to translate when my in-laws from Austria visit the U.S."; "Can you interpret the speech of the visiting dignitaries?"; "She rendered the French poem into English"; "He translates for the U.N."

* change from one form or medium into another; "Braque translated collage into oil"

* understand: make sense of a language; "She understands French"; "Can you read Greek?"

* bring to a certain spiritual state

* change the position of (figures or bodies) in space without rotation

* be equivalent in effect; "the growth in income translates into greater purchasing power"

* be translatable, or be translatable in a certain way; "poetry often does not translate"; "Tolstoy's novels translate well into English"

* subject to movement in which every part of the body moves parallel to and the same distance as every other point on the body

* express, as in simple and less technical language; "Can you translate the instructions in this manual for a layman?"; "Is there a need to translate the psychiatrist's remarks?"

* determine the amino-acid sequence of a protein during its synthesis by using information on the messenger RNA

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=F2e&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:translate&sa=X&ei=X4lmTaqKMY-gsQPo2-imBA&ved=0CBcQkAE

I am well aware of the 1828 dictionary and its definitions. We're having a 21st century discussion using 21st century academic terms.

See above for a 21st century difinition.

Which is why when I mean translate, I mean translate, as in what is done to literature, not "Moving Around Of Stuff".

And I mean one of the other 21st century meanings.

In all seriousness, due to how the word is used today academically - taking one extant text and expressing its extant words or ideas accurately into another language - based on a study of how Joseph worked, and a study of ancient manuscript history, this does not appear to be in any what was done with the JST.

See above for a 21st century definition of "translate". You will find that the JST is indeed a translation, even in the 21st century.

This also appears to be the general view that appears to be held by a great many of the academics employed by the Church Historical Department, among many others who dutifully and faithfully study all aspects of this material to greater understand it significance.

Perhaps they are not aware of the 21st century meanings available for the word "translate".

Along with them, I view the JST as an inspired work, but not as a restoration of original manuscript readings, or even the intended thoughts of the original recorders.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be called a "translation" in the 21st century usage of the word. See above for said definition.

Link to post

Which one are you using then? They are all different.

* change from one form or medium into another; "Braque translated collage into oil"

"Joseph translated modern religious concepts into a an ammended and expanded biblical narrative."

* bring to a certain spiritual state

"Joseph translated the ancient original biblical texts into an updated and more relevant and spiritual version that applied new 19th century doctrinal understanding and context to old characters and situations."

* be equivalent in effect; "the growth in income translates into greater purchasing power"

"Joseph and Sidney Rigdon's musings on current doctrinal and biblical questions and principles translates into the modern changes made in the Joseph Smith Translation."

Either way, you need to make clear which definition is being used when you're trying to debate it. Because, given the context of a text, the (properly) assumed definition would be the standard one of conveying the same material from one original language to another. In such a case where you want to use non-standard definitions for the context, it is up to you to make clear which definition you are using it in. Otherwise you're just shouting against the wind, and building straw men.

Link to post

Which one are you using then? They are all different.* change from one form or medium into another; "Braque translated collage into oil"

"Joseph translated modern religious concepts into a an ammended and expanded biblical narrative."

* bring to a certain spiritual state

"Joseph translated the ancient original biblical texts into an updated and more relevant and spiritual version that applied new 19th century doctrinal understanding and context to old characters and situations."

* be equivalent in effect; "the growth in income translates into greater purchasing power"

"Joseph and Sidney Rigdon's musings on current doctrinal and biblical questions and principles translates into the modern changes made in the Joseph Smith Translation."

Either way, you need to make clear which definition is being used when you're trying to debate it.

You are the one trying to debate this. You are the one claiming that the use of the word "translation" is inappropriate when applied to the JST.

It is you that needs to show that NONE of these definitions can be reasonably applied.

Because, given the context of a text, the (properly) assumed definition would be the standard one of conveying the same material from one original language to another.

Just exactly WHY is that "the PROPERLY assumed definition"?

In such a case where you want to use non-standard definitions for the context, it is up to you to make clear which definition you are using it in.

"Non-standard"?

You are going to use that as your refuge?

Well, hide behind it if you must.

Otherwise you're just shouting against the wind, and building straw men.

The "strawman", if it exists, is of your fabrication.

Link to post

CFR a non-Mormon academic paper or discussion in the context of the origins of a text using and assuming a different meaning of 'translate' or 'translation' than 'an attempt to convey the original concepts or ideas of a source text to another language or modern idiom'., and using instead one of your preferred usages of the term. I'd be very interested to see it, and would step down from this discussion and acknowledge my error.

Link to post

Not only are you moving the goal posts, you are being ridiculous.

From,

The JST, despite what we call it, isn't a translation.

To,

CFR a non-Mormon academic paper or discussion in the context of the origins of a text using and assuming a different meaning of 'translate' or 'translation' than 'an attempt to convey the original concepts or ideas of a source text to another language or modern idiom'., and using instead one of your preferred usages of the term. I'd be very interested to see it, and would step down from this discussion and acknowledge my error.

I haven't made any claims about "a non-Mormon academic paper or discussion . . . ".

Your "CFR" is ridiculous.

Link to post

What I'm saying is that it appears to me that the term translation as you are using it, in the context of a discussion on the origins of a text, is rarely if ever the assumed definition. Contextual definitions of a word are very important. You asserted other proper definitions of the word which confirm your usage was correct. I do not believe they are relevant or correct in the context you are arguing they belong in. I wanted to see evidence of someone else using that English word in the way you do, in a discussion of the origins of a version of a text, but out of a Mormon context.

IE, I want to see that someone else apart from you and Mormon apologists use that word in the way you are using it in the same context. Otherwise, I stand by the assertion that using 'Translation' in that manner is Mopologeticseze, and would not be understood or used in such a context by anyone else.

Heck, I'd be happy with seeing a non-Mormon usage of the word in your way in such a context in the 19th century, as you claim the alternate definitions testify. It should be easy, right?

Not only are you moving the goal posts, you are being ridiculous.

From,

To,

I haven't made any claims about "a non-Mormon academic paper or discussion . . . ".

Your "CFR" is ridiculous.

Link to post

What I'm saying is that it appears to me that the term translation as you are using it, in the context of a discussion on the origins of a text, is rarely if ever the assumed definition in an apologetic Mormon context.

So?

Contextual definitions of a word are very important.

Agreed. So when using the word "translate" in the context of the JST, one must understand what Joesph Smith understood it to mean. Thus I provided the 1828 definition.

You asserted other proper definitions of the word which confirm your usage was correct.

I provided them so you could understand that the word has a much broader meaning than the limited one you where imposing on it.

I do not believe they are relevant or correct in the context you are arguing they belong in.

So, providing expanded meanings isn't relevant to demonstrating that your limited meaning is . . . well . . . limited?

I wanted to see evidence of someone else using that English word in the way you do, in a discussion of the origins of a version of a text, but out of a Mormon context.

So, providing more definitions from both 1828 and today wasn't enough?

IE, I want to see that someone else apart from you and Mormon apologists use that word in the way you are using it in the same context.

So, providing more definitions from both 1828 and today wasn't enough?

Otherwise, I stand by the assertion that using 'Translation' in that manner is Mopologeticseze, and would not be understood or used in such a context by anyone else.

Other than both the 1828 dictionary and a modern dictionary, right?

Heck, I'd be happy with seeing a non-Mormon usage of the word in your way in such a context in the 19th century, as you claim the alternate definitions testify. It should be easy, right?

Other than both the 1828 dictionary and a modern dictionary, right?

Edited to add,

Unless you consider the 1828 dictionary and the modern dictionary to be Mormon works.

Link to post

Agreed. So when using the word "translate" in the context of the JST, one must understand what Joesph Smith understood it to mean. Thus I provided the 1828 definition.

No, I think Joseph used it in the standard sense. However, I don't think what he thought he was doing and what actually was going on necessarily have to be equivalent.

I provided them so you could understand that the word has a much broader meaning than the limited one you where imposing on it.

So, providing more definitions from both 1828 and today wasn't enough?

So, providing more definitions from both 1828 and today wasn't enough?

Other than both the 1828 dictionary and a modern dictionary, right?

Other than both the 1828 dictionary and a modern dictionary, right?

Unless you consider the 1828 dictionary and the modern dictionary to be Mormon works.

Okay, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. That's fine. Let me give an example to clarify. Using the word 'Carry'.

If I say, "John carries his socks." - what image do you have in mind? According to context and standard usage, it's safe to assume it means you're imagining that he's holding them, or has them in a bag, and is transporting them somewhere.

But what if his intent was "John wears his socks on his feet?" Would the first sentence be a proper and meaningful way to express that thought?

I glance at dictionary.com shows that one definition for Carry is, "to wear, hold, or have around one: He carries his knife in his pocket. He carries a cane."

Your logic says that since "to wear" is part of the definition, then "John carries his socks" should be a perfectly and legitimate way to express the intended meaning of 'wear', no matter the context, and anyone who didn't know what the writer was talking about must be uneducated, and not know what the dictionary says.

Context is essential in applying properly defined words. This is especially made clear when learning a new language. Just because a word looks to be the proper match in the dictionary, doesn't mean context, culture, and general usage won't mean you're completely misunderstood, laughed at, or made to offend someone. This isn't the fault of those hearing you speak. This isn't the fault of the dictionary. It comes from a lack of understanding of language on the part of the speaker.

Does this make any sense to you at all?

Link to post

No, I think Joseph used it in the standard sense. However, I don't think what he thought he was doing and what actually was going on necessarily have to be equivalent.

"Am I going mad, or did the word "think" escape your lips" to paraphrase Fezzik. ;)

And how does your opinion measure up to the facts?

Okay, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. That's fine.

I understand just fine. You are artificially limiting the definition of "translate".

Pry open that mind and allow for a broader understanding.

Let me give an example to clarify. Using the word 'Carry'.

If I say, "John carries his socks." - what image do you have in mind? According to context and standard usage, it's safe to assume it means you're imagining that he's holding them, or has them in a bag, and is transporting them somewhere.

But what if his intent was "John wears his socks on his feet?" Would the first sentence be a proper and meaningful way to express that thought?

No. The first is a statement the second is a question. :P

Yes, it is a "proper and meaningful way".

But in this case it could be expressed in a more clear and plain way.

In this case the word "wears" is available for use if his intent was "John wears his socks on his feet".

In our case, you need to show that another word was available to JS (and today) that expresses, in a more clear and plain way, exactly what the JST is.

Just look at the etymology.

The word translation derives from the Latin translatio (which itself comes from trans- and fero, together meaning "to carry across" or "to bring across").
I glance at dictionary.com shows that one definition for Carry is, "to wear, hold, or have around one: He carries his knife in his pocket. He carries a cane."

So we could say that he wears a knife or wears a cane, if the word carry, didn't provide a more clear understanding of what is actually going on.

Your logic says that since "to wear" is part of the definition, then "John carries his socks" should be a perfectly and legitimate way to express the intended meaning of 'wear', no matter the context, and anyone who didn't know what the writer was talking about must be uneducated, and not know what the dictionary says.

Except for the fact that in this case there is a better word in common usage.

Context is essential in applying properly defined words. This is especially made clear when learning a new language. Just because a word looks to be the proper match in the dictionary, doesn't mean context, culture, and general usage won't mean you're completely misunderstood, laughed at, or made to offend someone.

True. But the onus is yours to show that another word in common usage is a considerably more accurate and clear expression of exactly what the JST is.

This isn't the fault of those hearing you speak. This isn't the fault of the dictionary. It comes from a lack of understanding of language on the part of the speaker.

See above.

Does this make any sense to you at all?

Almost.

Link to post
True. But the onus is yours to show that another word in common usage is a considerably more accurate and clear expression of exactly what the JST is.

"Revision"

1. To review; to re-examine; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a proof sheet.

2. To review, alter and amend; as, to revise statutes.

Link to post

"Revision"

1. To review; to re-examine; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a proof sheet.

2. To review, alter and amend; as, to revise statutes.

Here you are providing a word that isn't better than "translate", it is, at most, equivalent to "translate" when describing what the JST is.

Showing the existance of the word is the first step. Now you need to show that it was part of Joseph Smith's lexicon.

Also you said this;

No, I think Joseph used it in the standard sense. However, I don't think what he thought he was doing and what actually was going on necessarily have to be equivalent.

So, am I understanding correctly that you think that when JS was "translating" the Bible he was actually rendering it from the original Greek/Hebrew to English? Did he even have access to the Greek/Hebrew? If he did, it is news to me.

Link to post

So, am I understanding correctly that you think that when JS was "translating" the Bible he was actually rendering it from the original Greek/Hebrew to English? Did he even have access to the Greek/Hebrew? If he did, it is news to me.

No, as I said, I think he believed he was drawing out the original meaning of the "lost" ur-text (written in Hebrew or Greek) and bringing it into modern language - inspiration allowed him to bypass working from the original. He was a mediary.The 'translation' was given as he prayerfully pondered it. This was the 'work' of translation.

To Joseph (and Rigdon, his scribe and partner in the New Translation), the Bible as it had been transmitted was broken, and needed to be fixed to be brought back to its pristine condition and clarity. This process was in 1830, directly following his Book of Mormon experience, by which he had an unintelligible ur-text in front of him (which he rarely ever actually used). Only later did he try his hand at learning Hebrew - and when he legitimately translated Hebrew as part of his classes, he used the same word - "translated hebrew most of the day", etc. The only difference to him being that this time, he was actually interacting and striving to academically work with the original language - not just work at receiving it through a revelatory process.

I think he thought his "inspired translation" actually restored original text. However, I don't believe it did. Yet I do feel that what it did do was also the result of inspiration, but working differently than Joseph himself fully grasped. In a much more effective, profound, and useful way for the teaching and orientation of the saints, as I see it.

Link to post

No, as I said, I think he believed he was drawing out the original meaning of the "lost" ur-text (written in Hebrew or Greek) and bringing it into modern language - inspiration allowed him to bypass working from the original. He was a mediary.The 'translation' was given as he prayerfully pondered it. This was the 'work' of translation.

To Joseph (and Rigdon, his scribe and partner in the New Translation), the Bible as it had been transmitted was broken, and needed to be fixed to be brought back to its pristine condition and clarity. This process was in 1830, directly following his Book of Mormon experience, by which he had an unintelligible ur-text in front of him (which he rarely ever actually used). Only later did he try his hand at learning Hebrew - and when he legitimately translated Hebrew as part of his classes, he used the same word - "translated hebrew most of the day", etc. The only difference to him being that this time, he was actually interacting and striving to academically work with the original language - not just work at receiving it through a revelatory process.

I think he thought his "inspired translation" actually restored original text. However, I don't believe it did. Yet I do feel that what it did do was also the result of inspiration, but working differently than Joseph himself fully grasped. In a much more effective, profound, and useful way for the teaching and orientation of the saints, as I see it.

That is YOUR theory.

I would insist upon at least a change, . . . correction if you will.

"To Joseph (and Rigdon, his scribe and partner in the New Translation), the Bible as it had been transmittedtranslated was broken, and needed to be fixed to be brought back to its pristine condition and clarity."

You know, the old "as far as it is translated correctly".

"Transmission" gives a much more "sent" feel to the context, whereas "translated" give a much more "conveyed" feel. If you understand my meaning.

It seems rather odd to me that you, sitting here in this day and time, are so convinced that you know what Joseph "thought" he was doing. You sound a lot like Fawn Brodie.

And YOU are OBVIOUSLY more in tune with the truth of the matter now, than Joseph was then. :P

Link to post

And this somehow makes a ground breaking difference?

There is this to consider.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=F2e&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:translate&sa=X&ei=X4lmTaqKMY-gsQPo2-imBA&ved=0CBcQkAE

See above for a 21st century difinition.

And I mean one of the other 21st century meanings.

See above for a 21st century definition of "translate". You will find that the JST is indeed a translation, even in the 21st century.

Perhaps they are not aware of the 21st century meanings available for the word "translate".

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be called a "translation" in the 21st century usage of the word. See above for said definition.

The JST is a true translation, in the common meaning of the term. The idea that it is something else is a load of crap. Most of the changes Joseph Smith made in the JST were not doctrinal, but semantic, and and do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. Why would he want to make those kinds of painstaking changes if he was merely adding his own commentary to the KJV?

Some of the changes consist of adding significant historical data to the text that did not exist before. Take the book of Moses for example; that is not just a commentary on the OT, but consists of additional historical data which we had no knowledge of before. How can that be classified as a "commentary"? If he was not translating from something, then he invented them out of whole cloth, which cannot be if their integrity is to be maintained.

In the book of Moses it actually tells us where the information came form. For example, after describing Moses' encounter with Satan, there is an inline commentary added (by the Lord) in verse 23 that says: "And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men" (Moses 1:23). In other words, that story was originally part of what Moses had included in his book, but for some reason, at some point in time it was removed.

In Moses 1:41 it says: "And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men

Link to post
The JST is a true translation, in the common meaning of the term. The idea that it is something else is a load of crap. Most of the changes Joseph Smith made in the JST were not doctrinal, but semantic, and and do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. Why would he want to make those kinds of painstaking changes if he was merely adding his own commentary to the KJV?

The JST clarifies the text, a holy, authoritative text, according to modern revelation, even if it is not the original meaning. As part of the process of clarification, semantic changes were introduced. I can easily show Nackhadlow's position to be correct, by using an example from the psalms. In fact, I think I'll open a new thread on that.

Link to post

The JST clarifies the text, a holy, authoritative text, according to modern revelation, even if it is not the original meaning. As part of the process of clarification, semantic changes were introduced. I can easily show Nackhadlow's position to be correct, by using an example from the psalms. In fact, I think I'll open a new thread on that.

You didn't even bother to read all of my post did you. You are replying to the first paragraph. Not very impressive.

Link to post

You didn't even bother to read all of my post did you. You are replying to the first paragraph. Not very impressive.

At least I actually replied to points you raised rather than dismissing them on frivolous grounds. I did read your entire post. I wanted to respond to the first paragraph. BTW I started a new thread on this.

Link to post

That is YOUR theory.

No, it's not. I'm not by far the first to articulate it. As more of the source documents become widely available, it is more and more the consesus of those who study them in connection with a study of biblical transmission. Even the late Robert J. Matthews, the highly conservative de facto authority on the JST aknowledged that a great deal of the JST was most likely not a restoration of original text. Bruce R. McConkie even recognized that not all of it necessitated a return to original text, in in fact at times would give 'another perspective' to a concept or situation.

This comes from a study of the complete JST (and all of its several manuscript variations and edits), the historical context of its production, and looking back at what is known from the biblical record.

Volgadon presented a great example from the Psalms.

Kevin Barney published a great, short paper discussing these very things back in 1986. The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible

Here's another paper - published in 1988 - discussing Moses (and Abraham, and the Temple) as developmental (yet inspired) midrashim on the KJV Genesis Creation Narratives, and going into specific detail why Moses and Abraham make no linguistic sense as a restoration of original language texts, seeing as some of the innovations, questions, and developments raised are undeniably based on mis-translations and concepts from the KJV that do not exist in the Hebrew. This paper is long, but worth the read. - "A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered"

I suggest you read them before discounting the concept out of hand.

Link to post

Even the late Robert J. Matthews, the highly conservative de facto authority on the JST aknowledged that a great deal of the JST was most likely not a restoration of original text.

So?

I am not, nor have I been, arguing that it is a "restoration of the original text". Because THAT would be a "translation" from one language to another.

Bruce R. McConkie even recognized that not all of it necessitated a return to original text, in in fact at times would give 'another perspective' to a concept or situation.

See above.

This comes from a study of the complete JST (and all of its several manuscript variations and edits), the historical context of its production, and looking back at what is known from the biblical record.

See above.

Volgadon presented a great example from the Psalms.

Which I don't have a problem with. See above.

Kevin Barney published a great, short paper discussing these very things back in 1986. The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible

Haven't read it. Thanks for linking it. But if it like what you have been citing in this post then I won't have a problem with it. See above.

Here's another paper - published in 1988 - discussing Moses (and Abraham, and the Temple) as developmental (yet inspired) midrashim on the KJV Genesis Creation Narratives, and going into specific detail why Moses and Abraham make no linguistic sense as a restoration of original language texts, seeing as some of the innovations, questions, and developments raised are undeniably based on mis-translations and concepts from the KJV that do not exist in the Hebrew. This paper is long, but worth the read. - "A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered"

All of this is nice, but irrelevant to my point. But thanks for providing them. If I have time I will read them.

I suggest you read them before discounting the concept out of hand.

You seem to have slipped a gear here. I am the one that is arguing that the word "translate/translation" has a broader meaning than what you want to limit it to. Due to this broader meaning, the JST qualifies as a "translation" because Joseph "translated" it.

I think you are confusing my position with that of Zerinus.

YOUR theory is that JS only "thought" he was translating from the original text to English. I don't accept that theory. I think JS was perfectly aware of what it was he was doing. And what he WAS DOING, he called "translation", because the broader meaning of the word APPLIES. In the case of the JST he was moving "truth" from heaven to earth; he was translating truth to earth.

Link to post

So?

I am not, nor have I been, arguing that it is a "restoration of the original text". Because THAT would be a "translation" from one language to another.

See above.

See above.

Which I don't have a problem with. See above.

Haven't read it. Thanks for linking it. But if it like what you have been citing in this post then I won't have a problem with it. See above.

All of this is nice, but irrelevant to my point. But thanks for providing them. If I have time I will read them.

You seem to have slipped a gear here. I am the one that is arguing that the word "translate/translation" has a broader meaning than what you want to limit it to. Due to this broader meaning, the JST qualifies as a "translation" because Joseph "translated" it.

I think you are confusing my position with that of Zerinus.

YOUR theory is that JS only "thought" he was translating from the original text to English. I don't accept that theory. I think JS was perfectly aware of what it was he was doing. And what he WAS DOING, he called "translation", because the broader meaning of the word APPLIES. In the case of the JST he was moving "truth" from heaven to earth; he was translating truth to earth.

It sounds like you both basically agree on what the JST is, but are stuck quibbling the applicability of "translate" in a modern context.

Link to post

It sounds like you both basically agree on what the JST is, but are stuck quibbling the applicability of "translate" in a modern context.

I think you need to go back and reread this thread. I have shown clearly that the word translate has a broader meaning, both in 1830 and today, than my critics are willing to full acknowledge. The quibbling is on the part of my critics.

The word "translate/translation" applies to what the JST is and how it was received. Those that artificially limit the meaning of the word, to exclude it from this case, are being unreasonable and intransigent.

Link to post

It sounds like you both basically agree on what the JST is, but are stuck quibbling the applicability of "translate" in a modern context.

I for one am done quibbling on that point. Sorry if its been a distraction. I still think its significant to a proper and worthwhile discussion of the matter.

Link to post

I for one am done quibbling on that point. Sorry if its been a distraction. I still think its significant to a proper and worthwhile discussion of the matter.

Hey...Nack, I will be going to the Atlanta open house after all as an usher. Pray for me that no protesters show up that day.

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...