Modernizing Bom Language

[Deborah]

I really think you are inflating the scope of the problem. Maybe an anthill for hundreds? Or somewhere in between?

I have to agree. I have never heard anyone complaining about this before, including youth whom I've taught.

[mnn727]

I really think you are inflating the scope of the problem. Maybe an anthill for hundreds? Or somewhere in between?

I am not talking about just members, I am talking about potential converts also.

While I don't have of any way of proving it that you would accept, I'd be willing to bet there would be more daily scripture study by current members if our Standard Works were modernized.

Edited October 27, 2011 by mnn727

[mnn727]

I have to agree. I have never heard anyone complaining about this before, including youth whom I've taught.

Have you asked anyone?

[Zakuska]

I have. It was a challenge I made to myself to read from cover to cover.

I have too at least once. It was my mission Goal for personal study and I did it, However... I have to confess that on some of those long geneologies I may have fallen to sleep and skipped a few verses.

[ERayR]

I am not talking about just members, I am talking about potential converts also.

While I don't have of any way of proving it that you would accept, I'd be willing to bet there would be more daily scripture study by current members if our Standard Works were modernized.

I think you may want to believe this but as I said I think you have inflated the problem if there is one.

[Calm]

I would think that if this was a problem, investigators would be quite willing to share their frustrations with the missionaries, especially now that there are so any modernized Bibles out there that they likely are familiar with.

Wouldn't missionaries then pass on the info to their leaders and on up the chain?

Edited October 28, 2011 by calmoriah

[Saints Alive]

I would think that if this was a problem, investigators would be quite willing to share their frustrations with the missionaries, especially now that there are so any modernized Bibles out there that they likely are familiar with.

Wouldn't missionaries then pass on the info to their leaders and on up the chain?

Really? I doubt that they would even think it an option.

[afterallwecando]

It's never gonna happen. At least not until a new Bible is embraced. The church still encourages the use of the 1611 KJV of the bible. There are newer more correct modern versions out there but not within mormonism...

[LeSellers]

It's never gonna happen. At least not until a new Bible is embraced. The church still encourages the use of the 1611 KJV of the bible. There are newer more correct modern versions out there but not within mormonism...

Sorry, we do not use the 1611 AV. There is a much more modern version we do use, from, as I recall, the XVIII. For instance:

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophesie, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I have all faith, so that I could remoove mountaines, and have no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I give my body to bee burned, and have not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Lehi

Edited October 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[sennahoj]

We Swedes have had two translations of the Book of Mormon. One that was translated in the late 19th century and one more just recently. The modern one has removed all archaic verb conjugations, some archaic words that have had their meanings changed overtime, and removed words that are no longer used in the Swedish language.

Interestingly, the older version has done away with all the "it came to pass"-es, but they were brought back in the new version. The modern version is more of a literal translation of the English while the older one, although more archaic linguistically, was more modern in style.

In the older, few sentences began with the word och ("and"). In the more recent version, the word is included.

In the older, most instances of "it came to pass" were omitted, but have the translation in modern Swedsih of "det hände sig". Back-translating this to English is very difficult. Det means "it", hände means "happened" while sig is a transitive object-pronoun. If you know German, it corresponds to "sich".

While being more faithful to the English, the Swedish recent version translates all archaisms found in the English version, but gives them a "modernized" rendering. The result is a strange linguistic order. The older Swedish version tries to find its own way of expressing the archaisms in a way proper to the Swedish language, but keeps the native archaisms secured.

[Saints Alive]

Thank you that is very interesting.

[Thinking]

...this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin.

What? So the translation into the old English style somehow is evidence of ancient origin?

[Saints Alive]

What? So the translation into the old English style somehow is evidence of ancient origin?

didn't you know that nephits spoke in 16th century english?

[cinepro]

This raises another question.

If we had all of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and it turned out that a "scholarly" translation of them reflected the content of the Book of Abraham, could the Church use them to produce updated versions of the Book of Abraham in English as it does with the Book of Mormon in other languages?

[Brade]

I love the sacred language of the scriptures, and of course I also love the KJV of the Bible as well.

I don't know much of the history of language. Would the language of the Kind James Bible have been sacred at the time when that language style was in use in ordinary discourse?

[ERayR]

didn't you know that nephits spoke in 16th century english?

Reading your posts one might come to the conclusion that you are unable to understand 16th century english. Am I reading your posts correctly?

[TAO]

What? So the translation into the old English style somehow is evidence of ancient origin?

Nah, but it makes it easier to see references to other scriptures and stuff. Much easier linking and the like. That be important, knowing how the scriptures all tie in together =).

Edited November 2, 2011 by TAO

[Saints Alive]

Reading your posts one might come to the conclusion that you are unable to understand 16th century english. Am I reading your posts correctly?

is this the ad hominem phase in your argument strategy?

Edited November 2, 2011 by Saints Alive

[ERayR]

is this the ad hominem phase in your argument strategy?

Nope it is a response to your snide attack on the Book of Mormon.

You are derailing. Stop it.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Minos

[Freedom]

Two points, (and both these points are probably flawed because I am not that well informed on the matters but here they are nonetheless).

1) As I understand it, there is no such thing as an original copy of the book of Mormon. There were, I think, 3,000 of the first edition made and each one had different errors in them. They would print a page and make some corrections, then print more. They did not print one page and make all the corrections then throw that draft out. Consequently, virtually every copy of the first edition is unique.

2) In terms of the language,I believe the King James version of the bible was written in what was then more common speech. Many latin-influenced languages such as french and spanish have both a formal and an informal language and they still use them today; consequently, the bible and book of Mormon, in those languages, is actually in common speech for the large part. English has dropped the informal speech and we, today, only use the formal speech. Consequently, I believe that it is a perceived level of reference that is perhaps only enforced because we are by and large an English speeking church. I don't believe that german members of the church perceive their edition to be irreverent or lacking in some way. English could well have kept the informal; if it had, we would not be having this discussion because the book would be written in normal every day language. Of course, I am completely unfamiliar with the scriptures on languages other than English, Spanish and French.

I suspect that, one day, the Book of Mormon will be modernized and we will look at this statement by the church leaders the same way we look at past statements about race, gays and evolution. Nevertheless, I have no plan to find a version other than the one published by the Church. If God feels it necessary to update the english text, he will let his servant the prophets know.

[Freedom]

What? So the translation into the old English style somehow is evidence of ancient origin?

The issue is not with modernizing old English words such as thee and though but rather with modernizing the grammar and sentence structure. There is also the problem of number. In Spanish, for example, there is a singular 'you' and a plural 'you'. If you put it in modern english, you only have the plural 'you'. These subtle changes can be significant. I am not familiar enough with the specific meanings of the old english pronouns to know if modernizing them would create a problem. But that is an aside. The greater issue, as I mentioned, is the sentence structure and grammar.

[Saints Alive]

Nope it is a response to your snide attack on the Book of Mormon.

Just for the record: I love the (message of the) Book of Mormon and have a strong testimony of its truthfulness.

What I am not attached to is the language of the Book of Mormon or what kind of paper it is written on. Those things are irrelevant, temporal, and vain. The message and witness of Christ contained within the Book of Mormon is what is eternal, precious, and true, not how many thee(s), thou(s), and it came to pass(es) are in it.

[LeSellers]

There is also the problem of number. In Spanish, for example, there is a singular 'you' and a plural 'you'. If you put it in modern english, you only have the plural 'you'. These subtle changes can be significant.

One such potentially confusing passage would be Matt 16:19, where Jesus tells Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom. Jesus says, "I will give unto thee the keys ...", but if we read it "I will give you the keys...' the confusion would be whether Jesus meant Peter alone (the correct answer), or to Peter, Jacob/James, and John (the three Apostles who were there with Him), or the Twelve all together. Some (those who reject Priesthood authority and keys entirely) might even assume if it was for any and all believers, the way they misunderstand and misapply the so-called "Great Commission".

The archaic pronoun "thee" in this passage is extremely helpful in deciding what it was that Jesus meant here.

(Note for any nit pickers: Yes, I know that in the next chapter, Jesus promises the keys to all the Twelve, but that is a different issue, isn't it?)

Lehi

[Saints Alive]

There are grammatical and mechanical ways to solve that problem. Linguist and translators use them all the time.

for example: "I will give you (Peter) the keys..."

Some Bible translations actually make extensive use of parentheses to clarify meaning.

[Thinking]

The issue is not with modernizing old English words such as thee and though but rather with modernizing the grammar and sentence structure. There is also the problem of number. In Spanish, for example, there is a singular 'you' and a plural 'you'. If you put it in modern english, you only have the plural 'you'. These subtle changes can be significant. I am not familiar enough with the specific meanings of the old english pronouns to know if modernizing them would create a problem. But that is an aside. The greater issue, as I mentioned, is the sentence structure and grammar.

One such potentially confusing passage would be Matt 16:19, where Jesus tells Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom. Jesus says, "I will give unto thee the keys ...", but if we read it "I will give you the keys...' the confusion would be whether Jesus meant Peter alone (the correct answer), or to Peter, Jacob/James, and John (the three Apostles who were there with Him), or the Twelve all together. Some (those who reject Priesthood authority and keys entirely) might even assume if it was for any and all believers, the way they misunderstand and misapply the so-called "Great Commission".

The archaic pronoun "thee" in this passage is extremely helpful in deciding what it was that Jesus meant here.

Alma 39:10 (Alma is talking to his son Corianton)

“And I command you to take it upon you to counsel with your elder brothers in your undertakings; for behold, thou art in thy youth, and ye stand in need to be nourished by your brothers. And give heed to their counsel.”

It seems that Corianton is plural, then singular, then plural again.

I can show you (plural) more if you (plural) would like.