Is this legit?

[krose]

Of your courtesy, would you kindly provide Biblical examples of every identified Book of Mormon semiticism mentioned on the Maxwell Institute website?

No, that's outside the scope of this discussion.

We are talking specifically about the examples in the "faith-promoting" email quoted.

[krose]

Because it is the more reasonable explanation of the two. Have you tried producing a work of fiction in the style of the KJV, such as you claim the Book of Mormon to be? Do you know how hard that is? Do you know of anyone else who had tried it before? The Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are not confined to a few isolated passages or phrases. All of the book is written in that way. Almost the whole of the Book of Mormon could be converted into authentic biblical Hebrew following those rules. To create such a thing in English purely out of one's own imagination is a near impossible task, even for someone with a perfect knowledge of biblical Hebrew. The alternative explanation is by far the most reasonable one.

Okay, so you base your own opinion on the assumption that it would be too hard to produce as a work of fiction. I don't share that opinion. I am not impressed with the Nibley challenge, and your assertion that producing such a work would be a "near impossible task" is just that -- an assertion.

If you are already predisposed to rejecting the Book of Mormon as anything other than a work of fiction, then of course you will grasp at anything to reject the alternative; but if you look at it with an impartial and unbiased mind, that is the more logical explanation of the two.

Actually, my personal bias regarding the BoM, from infancy into adulthood, was to consider it literal god-given Truth. But I was eventually able to overcome that bias and conclude that it is, unfortunately, most likely a work of fiction. No "grasping" was even necessary; it actually explained a lot.

[zerinus]

Okay, so you base your own opinion on the assumption that it would be too hard to produce as a work of fiction. I don't share that opinion. I am not impressed with the Nibley challenge, and your assertion that producing such a work would be a "near impossible task" is just that -- an assertion.

Everything is an opinion; but it is an informed opinion based on observable fact. Believe it or not, there are some people who still believe in a flat earth. They belong to the Flat Earth Society. They would bring the same kind of argument against my belief in a spherical earth that you are bring against my belief in the Book of Mormon—i.e. that it is just my opinion, and not a provable proposition. I suppose they have a point. But I think that my opinion is based on better information than theirs, and I would rather stick to my opinion than adopt their.

[cinepro]

From the OP:

So challenged was he by this book that he embarked on the project of

translating the Book of Mormon from English to Arabic. This translation was

different from other translators, for this was to be a translation

back to the original language of the book.

Explain?

[krose]

Everything is an opinion; but it is an informed opinion based on observable fact. Believe it or not, there are some people who still believe in a flat earth. They belong to the Flat Earth Society. They would bring the same kind of argument against my belief in a spherical earth that you are bring against my belief in the Book of Mormon—i.e. that it is just my opinion, and not a provable proposition. I suppose they have a point. But I think that my opinion is based on better information than theirs, and I would rather stick to my opinion than adopt their.

Wow.

If you are seriously equating everyone who believes that the BoM is a 19th-century human creation to flat-earth believers, I fear you have now sailed right off the edge of the earth.

That is indeed laughable.

[zerinus]

Wow.

If you are seriously equating everyone who believes that the BoM is a 19th-century human creation to flat-earth believers, I fear you have now sailed right off the edge of the earth.

That is indeed laughable.

I don't really know what you are trying to get at by all of this; but whether you realize it or not, the Book of Mormon is such a complex and sophisticated literary/ translation masterpiece that Joseph Smith's own story of how it came about is actually more believable than the wild theories that have been put forward by his detractors as to how it might have been forged. Your evident ignorance of the required detail does not alter that fact for those who know enough about it to be able to appreciate it.

[krose]

... the Book of Mormon is such a complex and sophisticated literary/ translation masterpiece that Joseph Smith's own story of how it came about is actually more believable than the wild theories that have been put forward by his detractors as to how it might have been forged.

That's very convincing... just not to virtually every person on earth who has ever read any part of it.

How many people do you know who have become believers based on this claim, rather than a spiritual confirmation? You know, someone who picked it up and read it (without ever hearing anyone's 'testimony' about it) and decided that it really must be an ancient document that could not possibly have been created by any 19th-century human.

[zerinus]

That's very convincing... just not to virtually every person on earth who has ever read any part of it.

How many people do you know who have become believers based on this claim, rather than a spiritual confirmation? You know, someone who picked it up and read it (without ever hearing anyone's 'testimony' about it) and decided that it really must be an ancient document that could not possibly have been created by any 19th-century human.

Nobody ever comes to a conviction of the truth of the Book of Mormon in any other way than by a witness of the Holy Ghost—whether they pray for it or not. I never had to pray to know if the Book of Mormon was true or not. I knew it instantly the minute I read it—by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The analytical detail comes after that conviction is gained, and the book is carefully studied. I am not suggesting that you can come to a conviction of the truth of the Book of Mormon in any other way than by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[krose]

Nobody ever comes to a conviction of the truth of the Book of Mormon in any other way than by a witness of the Holy Ghost...

With this statement, we have now come to a point of agreement (other than that you understandably believe there is such a thing as a Holy Ghost), so with that I suppose we're done here.

Fare thee well.

[zerinus]

With this statement, we have now come to a point of agreement . . .

I am not entirely sure about that. The Book of Mormon was intended from the beginning to be a trial of our faith, as taught in the following verse:

1 Nephi 14

:

7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

The “marvellous work” referred to here is the Book of Mormon. It is a great sifter. It separates the sheep from the goats; those who believe from those who believe not. It was designed that way from the beginning. The reason why we bring those kinds of arguments to support it is not in order to prove to people by those means that it is true, but in order to counter the arguments of the critics that it is not true! The point is that although the Book of Mormon cannot be proved to be true by scholarly/ archaeological methods, it cannot be (and never has been) disproved either; and as I mentioned in another post, the Book of Mormon is such a complex literary/ translation masterpiece that Joseph Smith’s own story of how it came about is easier to believe than the wild theories that have been put forward by his critics as to how it might have been forged. But secular scholars do not seriously examine it from that point of view because it falls outside the remit of their “scholarship” to give serious consideration to something that claims to have a miraculous origin. They do not have the necessary apparatus to handle something of that description.

(other than that you understandably believe there is such a thing as a Holy Ghost), so with that I suppose we're done here.

I see; so you question the existence of the Holy Ghost too! Fair enough. Then I agree, we don’t have much else left to talk about.

Fare thee well.

Thank you. I leave you with the “farewell” of Nephi:

2 Nephi 33

:

14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.

15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen.

And also of Moroni:

Ether 12

:

38 And now I, Moroni, bid farewell unto the Gentiles, yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.

39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

Farewell to you indeed my friend.

[Robert F. Smith]

So I take it you find the claims quoted in the initial post convincing, then? You accept the claim that the existence of those words and phrases in the BoM constitute good evidence that it was translated from ancient Hebrew?

If so, upon what do you base the claim that translation from Hebrew is a better explanation for their existence than imitating KJV language style?

krose post #18

The pertinent point here is not that the BoM rips off the bible's content; it is that language constructions such as "forty and four," "must needs be," "judgement seat" and "stiffnecked" are all common King James words and phrases. Therefore, a person who is writing with the aim of imitating the feel of that bible would be very likely to use them. The use of such phrases is not evidence that the BoM was a translation from an Egyptian or Hebrew source, but evidence that the book was created to emulate the KJV style (by someone who knew that style well).

And the fact that Smith didn't call a character "Helaman Jr."? Surely no thoughtful person would accept that as serious evidence for a semitic language origin.

Your main point is well taken, krose, even though you press it too far, as did Hanna himself.

As Vogadon advises, Hanna's examples are weak. And, in any case, we should be less interested in common KJVisms (which continued to be used by scholars for translations from antiquity for a century after Joseph Smith) than in phrases which reflect authentic Hebrew grammar not displayed in the KJV. In other words, as you have observed, plenty of Hebraisms are visible in both the KJV and the Book of Mormon. However, the only Hebraisms of interest here should be those not reflected in the KJV -- nor for that matter in Joseph's immediate environment.

A colleague of mine has privately observed several noteworthy examples of such Hebraisms, but I shall refrain from citing the actual Hebrew phrases until after he publishes them. Some of them are very interesting, and I'll give a few in passing only because they are equally impressive Egyptianisms:

1. I Nephi17:14 has "arriven to the promised land" in the Printer's Manuscript, which is changed to "arrived to" in the 1830 and most editions, and then changed to "arrived in" by 1920. This fits a literal translation of the expected Hebrew preposition, but may just as well reflect cognate Egyptian prepositions, r- and n-, also meaning "to, for" > Demotic n > Coptic r and n. In this case, Egyptian iw (ii) r "come to, arrive at," or pḥt-r "reach to, ending at," and the derived Coptic phrases ei, ern "come to, arrive at," and pOH n-, "reach, arrive at," seem particularly apropos here.

2. Alma 49:4,22, speaks of the casting or throwing of arrows (as well as stones), which would be appropriate to Egyptian wdi,ndi "throw; shoot (arrow); throw down," although there is an equally valid example of "cast, throw," for this same context in Classical Hebrew.

3. Helaman 9:6 "he being stabbed . . . by a garb of secrecy" combines the notion of cloak, garb, garment, and treachery in one concept, which can be paralleled by Hebrew & Egyptian cognate term Egyptian ḥbs(wt) = Coptic Hobs,Hbso, HbOOs -- especially in the Egyptian expression ḥbs rmn "clothe of arm (with arms hidden in clothing); hide, cover up."

4. Alma 13:1, "cite yourminds forward," to past commandments, could be expressed by Egyptian tp-'wy "who are in front of, before; former (of time)"; tpt-' "former-state," or m-b3ḥ "formerly; in front of" (Coptic mmaH-), as well as by a Classical Hebrew word suggested in the unpublished paper of a colleague.

These, and many more idiomatic expressions were foreign to Joseph's linguistic environment, and such examples are difficult to explain on the theory that Joseph merely made it all up and cleverly employed the "feel" of the KJV.

[volgadon]

Robert, I've guessed at most of the Hebrew words when reading your post. Your colleague's paper sounds fascinating.

[Mars]

4. Alma 13:1, "cite your minds forward," to past commandments, could be expressed by Egyptian ...

More explanation, please. This wording has always furrowed my brow.

[krose]

Okay, you drew me back in...

I see; so you question the existence of the Holy Ghost too!

Not question, but rather dismiss -- due to lack of evidence -- as yet another creation of the fertile human imagination, along with many others, such as Xenu and past-life memories.

It was probably early in the evolution of primitive humans (more than 100,000 years ago) that they came up with the magic/gods concept, both to explain the workings of the world that they didn't understand, and to provide comfort in the face of certain death. Certainly that would include the various unseen 'spirits,' either of the dead or other supernatural beings.

[krose]

Robert,

These examples are obviously much better. However, it brings up the question that BoM translation conversations always lead to... the method of translation. Did Smith somehow have to come up with his own words and phrases, or was he given the words via revelation?

If so-called Hebraisms actually exist in the text (that are not either coincidental or the result of emulating another ancient Hebrew text), that seems to require a "tight" translation, with the words being delivered supernaturally. But that brings up another question for me: why would a supernatural power not provide a clear English translation, rather than awkward constructions with remnants of the source grammar and vocabulary? Surely the goal would be to produce a text that is easy for the target audience to understand?

In my experience, the ultimate goal in successfully translating a document is to make the reader feel as if it were created in his/her own language, and who could do that job better than a multilingual angel or god?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Legit, but Sammi had left the church later and became an evangelical.

I have often wondered about such individuals, Mormonism to Evangelicalism then on to the next stage, just as long as they remain at the podium and have an audience. Hope I am wrong…usually am.

[zerinus]

Robert,

These examples are obviously much better. However, it brings up the question that BoM translation conversations always lead to... the method of translation. Did Smith somehow have to come up with his own words and phrases, or was he given the words via revelation?

If so-called Hebraisms actually exist in the text (that are not either coincidental or the result of emulating another ancient Hebrew text), that seems to require a "tight" translation, with the words being delivered supernaturally. But that brings up another question for me: why would a supernatural power not provide a clear English translation, rather than awkward constructions with remnants of the source grammar and vocabulary? Surely the goal would be to produce a text that is easy for the target audience to understand?

In my experience, the ultimate goal in successfully translating a document is to make the reader feel as if it were created in his/her own language, and who could do that job better than a multilingual angel or god?

That may be your opinion, but not necessarily everybody else's. The translators of the KJV evidently didn't think so, neither have many other translators before and since. God apparently thinks that they are right, and you are wrong. Why do you think that God has to agree with you rather than with them? Do you think that you are always right about everything, and anybody who disagrees with you always wrong?

[Robert F. Smith]

More explanation, please. This wording has always furrowed my brow.

I guess the main point of the Egyptian phrase is that former things are "before, in front of" you, so that you must think "forward," rather than "back" (as would be expected in English).

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

These examples are obviously much better. However, it brings up the question that BoM translation conversations always lead to... the method of translation. Did Smith somehow have to come up with his own words and phrases, or was he given the words via revelation?

If so-called Hebraisms actually exist in the text (that are not either coincidental or the result of emulating another ancient Hebrew text), that seems to require a "tight" translation, with the words being delivered supernaturally. But that brings up another question for me: why would a supernatural power not provide a clear English translation, rather than awkward constructions with remnants of the source grammar and vocabulary? Surely the goal would be to produce a text that is easy for the target audience to understand?

In my experience, the ultimate goal in successfully translating a document is to make the reader feel as if it were created in his/her own language, and who could do that job better than a multilingual angel or god?

Points well taken.

There are a couple of theories of translation, although both probably ought to be conditioned by II Nephi 31:3 "he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (cf. D&C 1:24 "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding").

1. The plenary theory of inspiration, in which God dictates the very words and the recipient merely parrots them -- thus producing inerrant Scripture.

2. Either a dynamic metaphrase, or a literal translation expressed by the translator based on his own learning and language environment, as he receives inspiration and acts as an interpreter of it -- he acts as a transducer (it comes through his mind) capable of producing whole phrases in response to that inspiration, but only as a fallible human, with his own particular strengths and weaknesses.

I think that the evidence favors the second option, and that Joseph tended to translate fairly literally, his scribes sometimes making errors. Surely Moroni had a reason for emphasizing that "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men" (Title Page; cf. Mormon 8:17). After all, humans are all fallible, and even in receiving infallible Scripture must surely express it fallibly. There can actually be no inerrant Scripture on Earth. Such would only be possible in Heaven.

[cinepro]

Points well taken.

There are a couple of theories of translation, although both probably ought to be conditioned by II Nephi 31:3 "he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (cf. D&C 1:24 "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding").

1. The plenary theory of inspiration, in which God dictates the very words and the recipient merely parrots them -- thus producing inerrant Scripture.

2. Either a dynamic metaphrase, or a literal translation expressed by the translator based on his own learning and language environment, as he receives inspiration and acts as an interpreter of it -- he acts as a transducer (it comes through his mind) capable of producing whole phrases in response to that inspiration, but only as a fallible human, with his own particular strengths and weaknesses.

I think that the evidence favors the second option, and that Joseph tended to translate fairly literally, his scribes sometimes making errors. Surely Moroni had a reason for emphasizing that "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men" (Title Page; cf. Mormon 8:17). After all, humans are all fallible, and even in receiving infallible Scripture must surely express it fallibly. There can actually be no inerrant Scripture on Earth. Such would only be possible in Heaven.

How would option #2 account for the words "curelom" and "cumom" and the proper nouns?

If the translation process were clear enough and precise enough to communicate unique, unknown words, wouldn't this indicate the need for a "tight" translation process?

I recognize that there are too many instances where a tight translation process is problematic as well and a "loose" translation theory is then required. It just never ceases to amaze me that the necessity for apologists to concurrently subscribe to two competing theories (using either as needed) doesn't create more problems.

[cinepro]

Points well taken.

There are a couple of theories of translation, although both probably ought to be conditioned by II Nephi 31:3 "he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (cf. D&C 1:24 "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding").

1. The plenary theory of inspiration, in which God dictates the very words and the recipient merely parrots them -- thus producing inerrant Scripture.

2. Either a dynamic metaphrase, or a literal translation expressed by the translator based on his own learning and language environment, as he receives inspiration and acts as an interpreter of it -- he acts as a transducer (it comes through his mind) capable of producing whole phrases in response to that inspiration, but only as a fallible human, with his own particular strengths and weaknesses.

I think that the evidence favors the second option, and that Joseph tended to translate fairly literally, his scribes sometimes making errors. Surely Moroni had a reason for emphasizing that "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men" (Title Page; cf. Mormon 8:17). After all, humans are all fallible, and even in receiving infallible Scripture must surely express it fallibly. There can actually be no inerrant Scripture on Earth. Such would only be possible in Heaven.

How would option #2 account for the words "curelom" and "cumom" and the proper nouns?

If the translation process were clear enough and precise enough to communicate unique, unknown words, wouldn't this indicate the need for a "tight" translation process?

I recognize that there are too many instances where a tight translation process is problematic as well and a "loose" translation theory is then required. It just never ceases to amaze me that the necessity for apologists to concurrently subscribe to two competing theories (using either as needed) doesn't create more problems.

[Commander]

From HolyFetch.comBook of Mormon translator converted to Church True/but is often embellished There are several versions of this story, but the main points are that Elder Russell M. Nelson had a neighbor named Sami Hanna who was not a member, but was asked to translate the Book of Mormon into a different language (the language changes all the time). After translating the book, Hanna investigates the Church and ends up being baptized and joining. The main points of this story are true. Sami Hanna, who was born in Egypt, was a neighbor to Nelson. He was a scholar with special expertise in Semitic languages. He did translate the Book of Mormon from English into Arabic as a linguistic exercise. Among the many linguistic features that convinced him of the book's divinity was the unusual sentence in Helaman, Ch. 3, v. 14. He said that sentence had 18 ands in it and each and is needed in translating it back into Arabic. He was later baptized. Additional points that are often added to this story are unconfirmed. Nelson mentions this conversion in a talk called, "A Treasured Testament" in the July, 1993 Ensign.

[zerinus]

Points well taken.

There are a couple of theories of translation, although both probably ought to be conditioned by II Nephi 31:3 "he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (cf. D&C 1:24 "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding").

1. The plenary theory of inspiration, in which God dictates the very words and the recipient merely parrots them -- thus producing inerrant Scripture.

2. Either a dynamic metaphrase, or a literal translation expressed by the translator based on his own learning and language environment, as he receives inspiration and acts as an interpreter of it -- he acts as a transducer (it comes through his mind) capable of producing whole phrases in response to that inspiration, but only as a fallible human, with his own particular strengths and weaknesses.

I would like to suggest a third method of translation. I believe that Joseph Smith intellectually participated in the translation process (i.e. he was not just acting like a zombie); but the inspiration through which he did it was so strong that it was as good as if God had dictated it word for word Himself. Here is a scripture that suggests this: ". . . therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me" (D&C 9:9). That I believe how the translation was done. It is as good as if God had dictated it Himself. See also a reply I gave in another thread in this post.