From Idaho State Journal

[Guest Just Curious]

That's effectively it.

OK thank you for clearing that up, so when Joseph wrote, horse, cow, oxen, donkey etc, those are literally 100% correctly the right animal and when he wrote curelom and cumom those are animals that are phonetically spelled because there was no animal in the english language that was those animals...would this be a correct deduction based on your previous statements?

[Guest Just Curious]

Stop trying to change the subject.

How can I change the subject I have no idea what you are talking about...LOL

If I have mischaracterized your attack,

Attack??? Attack....what attack?? Where???

Now explain how you can disagree with Peter's authoritative assertion of a global flood, the "official" Christian position.

I never said I agreed or disagreed with it...where have I taken a position on it before?

[Calm]

edit--removed as the conversation moved past this point while I was reading.

Since the author of the BoM is God

Who makes the claim that the author of the BoM is God?

[Daniel Peterson]

OK thank you for clearing that up, so when Joseph wrote, horse, cow, oxen, donkey etc, those are literally 100% correctly the right animal and when he wrote curelom and cumom those are animals that are phonetically spelled because there was no animal in the english language that was those animals...would this be a correct deduction based on your previous statements?

Close, but not quite 100%.

When Joseph dictated and his scribe wrote the words horse, cow, oxen, and donkey, they did so because those were the words (in their Nephite equivalents) that appeared on the plates. Whether the Nephites classified such animals precisely as you would, whether they distinguished between horse and non-horse in exactly the same way that a twenty-first century English speaker does, is not entirely certain.

[Guest Just Curious]

Close, but not quite 100%.

When Joseph dictated and his scribe wrote the words horse, cow, oxen, and donkey, they did so because those were the words (in their Nephite equivalents) that appeared on the plates. Whether the Nephites classified such animals precisely as you would, whether they distinguished between horse and non-horse in exactly the same way that a twenty-first century English speaker does, is not entirely certain.

OK well since I seem to be not quite understanding...can you tell me which words are correct in the BoM and which ones are possibly open to interpretation or how one can tell which is correct and which needs more interpretation?

[Confidential Informant]

Stop trying to change the subject.

How can I change the subject I have no idea what you are talking about...LOL

If I have mischaracterized your attack,

Attack??? Attack....what attack?? Where???

Now explain how you can disagree with Peter's authoritative assertion of a global flood, the "official" Christian position.

I never said I agreed or disagreed with it...where have I taken a position on it before?

LOL, let the dissembling and double standards reign supreme!

I wondered how you'd get around it, now I see you get around it by not addressing it all and simply pretending it doesn't exist.

Wow!

C.I.

[Guest Just Curious]

When Joseph dictated and his scribe wrote the words horse, cow, oxen, and donkey, they did so because those were the words (in their Nephite equivalents) that appeared on the plates. Whether the Nephites classified such animals precisely as you would, whether they distinguished between horse and non-horse in exactly the same way that a twenty-first century English speaker does, is not entirely certain.

You see Dan what is very confusing to many people is the above statement. Let me illustrate...you say that horse, cow, oxen and donkey may not be exactly those animals but those are the english equivalent of the nephite animal. However we go and see curelom and cumom, yet there is not english equivalent of those nephite animals. Almost certainly there is some animal that would have resembled those animals...

[Calm]

yet there is not english equivalent of those nephite animals. Almost certainly there is some animal that would have resembled those animals...

By whose standards are you suggesting this? Nephites or Joseph's or modern day Amercans? Or someone else?

[Guest Just Curious]

I wondered how you'd get around it, now I see you get around it by not addressing it all and simply pretending it doesn't exist.

Wow!

Look I don't know what your game is but I am trying to learn something here and you are doing nothing but trying to start an arguement and accusing me of things that are not true....I am not going to respond to your posts anymore so feel free to write whatever you wish but I will not respond...

[Guest Just Curious]

yet there is not english equivalent of those nephite animals. Almost certainly there is some animal that would have resembled those animals... 

By whose standards are you suggesting this? Nephites or Joseph's or modern day Amercans? Or someone else?

The same standard used in the BoM Translation process...

[Guest johnny_cat]

You see Dan what is very confusing to many people is the above statement. Let me illustrate...you say that horse, cow, oxen and donkey may not be exactly those animals but those are the english equivalent of the nephite animal. However we go and see curelom and cumom, yet there is not english equivalent of those nephite animals. Almost certainly there is some animal that would have resembled those animals...

Where do you stand on this, Just Curious? It seems to me that there are a few possibilities:

1. Joseph mistakenly thought there were donkeys, cows, oxen, etc., in the New World and then added cureloms and cumoms as a flourish.

2. Joseph used the words donkey, cow, oxen, etc., as approximations of animals he saw. When he had no approximation, he used the Nephite names, curelom and cumom.

3. The Nephites used the words donkey, cow, etc., as names for animals they saw in the New World that were similar to animals they were familiar with. When they ran into animals they had no equivalent for, they gave them new names, such as cureloms and cumoms.

Those are just the possibilities off the top of my head.

[Guest Just Curious]

Where do you stand on this, Just Curious? It seems to me that there are a few possibilities:

What I am trying to do Johnny is apply a single comprehensive standard to evaluating the BoM that will be consistent throughout without changing the standard when something doesn't meet the standard...does that make sense?

[Calm]

The same standard used in the BoM Translation process...

And what do you believe this to be?

[Daniel Peterson]

You see Dan what is very confusing to many people is the above statement.  Let me illustrate...you say that horse, cow, oxen and donkey may not be exactly those animals but those are the english equivalent of the nephite animal.  However we go and see curelom and cumom, yet there is not english equivalent of those nephite animals.  Almost certainly there is some animal that would have resembled those animals...

For the life of me I can't see the reason for your confusion. When the Nephite equivalent of the English word horse appeared on the plates, the translation uses the English word horse. When a Nephite word appeared that had no equivalent in the English accessible to Joseph Smith (e.g., a toponym like Zarahemla or a faunal name such as curelom). it was transliterated. There are only a few of the latter in the Book of Mormon, apart from proper names, and they are rather obvious. So obvious, in fact, that even anti-Mormons, who are not generally known for their deep reading of the text or their wide reading in relevant scholarship, have long mocked them.

This is what good translators often do. In translations from the Arabic, for example, we nowadays tend simply to transliterate terms like khalifa ["caliph"] and

[Confidential Informant]

I am not going to respond to your posts anymore so feel free to write whatever you wish but I will not respond...

Oh, I know you won't respond. Indeed, it appears you are incapapble of doing so. Of course, it's my belief you full well recognize the corner you have painted yourself into with your fundamentalistic viewpoint, but hey, I'm sure you've got some other reason you will point to for ignoring it.

That's fine, you see, because fair minded people will read what I have written and realize your application of a double standard.

Don't feel bad though, Joey seems to have been completely unable to answer the question either.

C.I.

[Guest Just Curious]

For the life of me I can't see the reason for your confusion. When the Nephite equivalent of the English word horse appeared on the plates, the translation uses the English word horse. When a Nephite word appeared that had no equivalent in the English accessible to Joseph Smith (e.g., a toponym like Zarahemla or a faunal name such as curelom). it was transliterated.

What about when the plates were not being used yet translation was going on?

[Daniel Peterson]

Though you continue to object, the basis for your objection seems to be shifting yet again.

I don't think it much matters whether the plates were nearby or not. The translation was accomplished by revelation anyway. Without revelation, Joseph could have stared at the plates from now until the end of time without learning anything at all. With revelation, the plates didn't have to be right there on his desk in the manner of a conventional translator's text, grammar, and lexicon. That does not, however, necessarily entail the conclusion that the translation was unconnected to the text on the plates.

[Calm]

Translation was never directly from the plates, so why should this be an issue?

[raindancer]

Translation was never directly from the plates, so why should this be an issue?

then what was the purpose of the plates being found?

[Daniel Peterson]

Translation was never directly from the plates, so why should this be an issue?

then what was the purpose of the plates being found?

They, and the very powerful Witness testimonies confirming their existence, constitute an unswallowable lump in the throats of those who wish to explain the Book of Mormon as something merely spun out of the (dishonest or insane) mind of Joseph Smith.

[Dr. Shades]

I don't think it much matters whether the plates were nearby or not. . . With revelation, the plates didn't have to be right there on his desk in the manner of a conventional translator's text, grammar, and lexicon.

Then why did Joseph bother to dig up the plates? Why not just remote view them from where Moroni buried them?

[Daniel Peterson]

See above.

[Guest Just Curious]

Though you continue to object, the basis for your objection seems to be shifting yet again.

Where did I object...I asked a totaly valid question based on your previous answer.

[pseudogratix]

I am afraid that people that have never been involved in translation and who aren't open to anything more than their perceived notions of translation simply aren't going to get it, no matter how plainly it is explained. (Of course, I hope that I am wrong about this.)

[Guest Just Curious]

I am sorry if I am confused Dan I am just having a little trouble with understanding your answers....you first said...

Close, but not quite 100%.

When Joseph dictated and his scribe wrote the words horse, cow, oxen, and donkey, they did so because those were the words (in their Nephite equivalents) that appeared on the plates.

Then you said...

For the life of me I can't see the reason for your confusion. When the Nephite equivalent of the English word horse appeared on the plates, the translation uses the English word horse. When a Nephite word appeared that had no equivalent in the English accessible to Joseph Smith (e.g., a toponym like Zarahemla or a faunal name such as curelom). it was transliterated.

And now I ask about when the plates were not used because there were times when they weren't used and your previous posts were particularly addressing the words on the plates...

I don't think it much matters whether the plates were nearby or not. The translation was accomplished by revelation anyway. Without revelation, Joseph could have stared at the plates from now until the end of time without learning anything at all. With revelation, the plates didn't have to be right there on his desk in the manner of a conventional translator's text, grammar, and lexicon. That does not, however, necessarily entail the conclusion that the translation was unconnected to the text on the plates.

OK please tell me who revealed the words to Joseph, because I see two things that are confusing, first we see translation and transliteration then I see that when the plates were indeed not near him the words were "revealed". What were the words revealed on when there were no plates being used?

That does not, however, necessarily entail the conclusion that the translation was unconnected to the text on the plates

.

And equally it does not necessarily entail the conclusion that the translation was connected to the text on the plates either...

So we have use of the plates, non use of the plates, translation, transliteration and revelation and it doesn't matter if the plates were nearby they could have been being still used by some means, I guess I am just dumber than a box of rocks for asking all these questions huh?