BOM translation and inerrancy

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I am baffled at your post. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Everything you posit is conjecture without a single reference to back it up. It is as if you just want to create a scenario where anything is possible and any information presented against your point of view is useless. This is clearly not the case. Changes have been made that are more than just spelling and grammatical despite some claims otherwise. You are welcome to theorize all you like as to how God, if he exists and if he was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon, allowed these inconsistencies. You are wrong about some suggestions you made, but they are irrelevant in relation to that main point.

I am more puzzled by your statement than you are by mine.

Tell me, do you think "is" and "are," in King's James English, are interchangeable? Are you suggesting that changes of this nature were not made?

As I said, you need to give specific examples, and how frequently it occurred, before an intelligent assessment can be made. The ball there is in your court, not mine.

[emilysmith]

I suppose I wasn't very clear.

You are using sophistry to make it seem like I am wrong when you haven't actually contributed anything to the conversation. The ball never left your court, so to speak. That is why I asked those questions. I am happy to provide the examples, I just want to make sure I understand your point of contention before I go rummaging around the Internet.

You seem to be suggesting that "is" and "are," in King James English, are interchangeable. Is that true? You also seemed to be suggesting that these changes did not occur. Is that true? If you don't know and require references, I find it odd that would be so quick to disagree with me without having done any research whatsoever to determine if your own theory is correct.

It just seems wierd to me that someone would pretend to know something, then prove they don't know by asking for examples.

Or did I misunderstand you?

[zerinus]

I suppose I wasn't very clear.

You are using sophistry to make it seem like I am wrong when you haven't actually contributed anything to the conversation. The ball never left your court, so to speak. That is why I asked those questions. I am happy to provide the examples, I just want to make sure I understand your point of contention before I go rummaging around the Internet.

You seem to be suggesting that "is" and "are," in King James English, are interchangeable. Is that true? You also seemed to be suggesting that these changes did not occur. Is that true? If you don't know and require references, I find it odd that would be so quick to disagree with me without having done any research whatsoever to determine if your own theory is correct.

It just seems wierd to me that someone would pretend to know something, then prove they don't know by asking for examples.

Or did I misunderstand you?

You do not appear to be interested in a serious discussion. I told you, unless you can give specific examples (i.e. by quoting specific verses where that has occurred), and how often it occurred, we cannot take this discussion further. You are new to the board, and do not appear to be familiar with the rules. When you make a statement, the burden is on you to provide documentary evidence to back up your claim, not on the readers to go and dig them up.

[emilysmith]

I am aware of the rules. I posted my argument, then I provided references and examples.

You posted what veils itself as a refutation, but you don't provide any references or examples. You merely try to create holes at individual pieces of my argument without providing your own cohesive theory of translation. Then you demand examples that you could easily acquire yourself by using Google.

I may be a little green, but I sense something dishonest about your approach. I don't understand why you would be opposed to answering my questions.

I would prefer not to hunt down (what may be) wrong examples.

You merely have to clarify your point of contention so we can continue in a serious discussion. Don't you think that is fair?

[zerinus]

I am aware of the rules. I posted my argument, then I provided references and examples.

You posted what veils itself as a refutation, but you don't provide any references or examples. You merely try to create holes at individual pieces of my argument without providing your own cohesive theory of translation. Then you demand examples that you could easily acquire yourself by using Google.

I may be a little green, but I sense something dishonest about your approach. I don't understand why you would be opposed to answering my questions.

I would prefer not to hunt down (what may be) wrong examples.

You merely have to clarify your point of contention so we can continue in a serious discussion. Don't you think that is fair?

I have nothing further to add to what I have said. When you are ready provide your proof text for your assertions, I will be happy to discuss it further with you. There are thousands of minor changes of that description made in the Book of Mormon. I don't know which ones you are referring to unless you give specific examples.

[TAO]

In other words Emily, he is CFRing you. CFR means call for reference. Thus, you are required to provide references by the rules.

[zerinus]

In other words Emily, he is CFRing you. CFR means call for reference. Thus, you are required to provide references by the rules.

What references am I supposed to provide? She is the one who is making specific claims, and needs to provided the references.

[TAO]

What references am I supposed to provide? She is the one who is making specific claims, and needs to provided the references.

No, your not supposed to provide the references, she is. You were CFRing her.

[zerinus]

No, your not supposed to provide the references, she is. You were CFRing her.

Sorry, I misread your post!

She is new to the board, and probably hasn't heard of CFR before. That silly acronym has been invented by the people of this board. It is unheard of elsewhere.

[emilysmith]

My assertions are proved.

1. The official stance of the church is that the changes to the Book of Mormon were mainly typographical; spelling, verbal, grammatical.

2. Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth.

3. Changes have been made to the Book of Mormon that are more than typographical, spelling or grammatical.

4. The process of translation was inconsistent.

5. There were a number of opportunities for errors to occur in the process.

I implied that they could not have been created by God because there were so many errors, and the LDS Church has been making changes throughout the history of the text. This goes against what an average person would expect after some of the claims made by the church and by the prophet, Joseph Smith.

LeSellers then addresses the "most correct book" quotation without addressing:

'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

LeSellers also goes without addressing the examples of changes that were made that were not typographical, spelling or grammatical.

Without providing his own theory of translation, Zerinus says:

Since the original manuscript, that was dictated by Joseph Smith, has been largely lost, one cannot say what mistakes were made in the translation process, if at all. What we have is the printer

[zerinus]

My assertions are proved.

Your

[zerinus]

Continued from the previous post.

This is where I become distrustful of Zerinus, because he is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. . . .

I find your belligerent attitude instead of engaging is serious discussion highly distasteful. Evidently you do not have a valid argument to bring, and you try to make up for it by shouting and screaming. I consider that very distasteful.

I really was surprised by this gem:

There are all kinds of possible explanations for that, other than

[LeSellers]

LeSellers ...

Please, I invite you to call me "Lehi", the same as my mother-in-law does and former presidents Carter and Clinton did. It was my grandfather's name, and I'm quite fond of my patrimony.

... then addresses the "most correct book" quotation without addressing:

These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear. (History of the Church, Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

I didn't address it because I couldn't see how you had twisted it to mean something entirely unlikely.

Let's take the elements point-by-point:

These plates have been revealed by the power of God,

This says nothing about the translation nor its process. However, that the Plates were revealed by God is a powerful testimony that God wanted us to have His word, through, first, the Nephites, and secondly, through Joseph Smith.

and they have been translated by the power of God.

This says that God used Joseph Smith as the tool by which He translated the Book of Mormon. Whenever I've checked on this, it appears the Joseph was human, no more, and that, in his own words, he "was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, [he] frequently fell into errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, [he was] sorry to say, led [him] into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose [him] guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in [his] nature. But [he] was guilt of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc."

Moreover, his idiolect (personal language, a thing we all have) was far from the "King's English". From later in this message of yours, I see you have copied a list of "errors" that have been changed because Joseph (and his scribe, too, one would imagine) used "was" when a good English speaker would have said, "were". Oh, my! proof positive that Joseph could not have been a servant of God. Of course, by that standard, a sizable portion of the Bible would have to be thrown out because, for instance, Peter wrote lousy Greek, and had to have Mark write 2 Peter for him after the disaster that is 1 Peter. Micah wrote terrible Hebrew, and there are grammatical mistakes in Revelation. Down with bad grammar! I know I'd certainly rather go to hell than follow a so-called prophet who can't speak perfectly. </sarcasm>

Just so you are aware, as I am sure you are but may have forgotten, a translator does not necessarily produce perfect target-language prose (and never poetry). He is stuck with the errors (and there are always errors) in the source document, and he is stuck with his own idiolect.

No one, and especially Joseph himself, has ever claimed that Joseph was a celestial tape recorder (iPod, nowadays), merely acting as a mechanical device by which God created the text and Joseph only parroted it while Oliver Cowdery wrote it down. (Actually, that would be rather stupid, since it introduced a third, and unnecessary human element into the mix. Had Joseph been this passive device, he could just as simply written the manuscript himself, no, not "just as simply", it would have been far simpler.

The translation of them which you have seen is correct,

I am trying to see where the word "correct" is identical to "perfect". Not in any language I speak.

"Parfait", in French, is not "correct". "Perfetto", in Italian, does not equal "corretto", nor does German "perfect" mean exactly the same thing as "richtige".

adjective

conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate.

in accordance with an acknowledged or accepted standard; proper.

adjective

conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type.

excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement.

exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose.

entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings.

accurate, exact, or correct in every detail.

thorough; complete; utter.

pure or unmixed.

unqualified; absolute.

expert; accomplished; proficient.

unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree.

Botany .

having all parts or members present.

monoclinous.

Grammar .

noting an action or state brought to a close prior to some temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or incomplete action.

designating a tense or other verb formation or construction with such meaning.

Music .

applied to the consonances of unison, octave, and fifth, as distinguished from those of the third and sixth, which are called imperfect.

applied to the intervals, harmonic or melodic, of an octave, fifth, and fourth in their normal form, as opposed to augmented and diminished.

Mathematics . (of a set) equal to its set of accumulation points.

Obsolete . assured or certain.

As I did explain, the word "correct" in relationship to the Book of Mormon, refers to the doctrine, to "principles", not the grammar or the precise wording.

and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.

And we have the witnesses' testimonies at the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon ever printed (well, sometimes, in the past, it was in the back, but you get the idea).

[Lehi] also goes without addressing the examples of changes that were made that were not typographical, spelling or grammatical.

Of the ~3,500 changes (a trivial number in comparison with other books of its nature

[LeSellers]

My assertions are ...

1. The official stance of the church is that the changes to the Book of Mormon were mainly typographical; spelling, verbal, grammatical.

The examples you copied from someone else's work, without attribution, verify this "official stance".

The highest number of emendations I have ever seen was something like 8,000, but most people, critic and Saint alike, put the number at ~3,500 since the original, 1830, edition. All but a sparse handful were "typographical; [sic] spelling, verbal, grammatical". A dozen or so of 3,500 hardly constitutes a significant number.

2. Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth.

As I and others have pointed out, "most correct" does not equate to "perfect". What's your goal here?

3. Changes have been made to the Book of Mormon that are more than typographical, spelling or grammatical.

No one has claimed anything different. What's your goal here?

4. The process of translation was inconsistent.

The process is not a question that has any bearing on the issue of its divine nature. Joseph could have had a computer on his knee for all it would have mattered. The words of the Book of Mormon testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ from the first page to the last word. That's the important thing.

5. There were a number of opportunities for errors to occur in the process.

Indeed, there were. More than we have even begun to cover. What's your goal here?

I implied that they could not have been created by God because there were so many errors, and the LDS Church has been making changes throughout the history of the text. This goes against what an average person would expect after some of the claims made by the church and by the prophet, Joseph Smith.

Not an "average person". What I think you mean is a person poisoned against the Restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by those whose goal is to attack the work of God (even if they are well meaning, which some of them may be).

Again, I don't think these changes are significant to a Mormon, but I can see why they could be cause for concern since the script is supposed to be divine in origin.

This is a gross overstatement of the position of the Church or of Joseph Smith. No one ever claimed the text of the Book of Mormon was "exclusively" the product of God's handiwork. From the beginning (title page) to Moroni's challenge to critics in the last few verses of the book, the authors told us repeatedly that it was their work, as inspired by God. But they were men, human beings, who made errors. Joseph Smith readily admitted to his own human frailties. None of us expects the Book of Mormon to be perfect.

I suppose I was silly not to expect debate tactics solely meant to antagonize.

It appears you have made a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lehi