Calm Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 And "sheum" was in Joseph's vocabulary?Were names unique to the BoM in JS's vocabulary?No, that is the point of the description of how when a name or word that Joseph and Oliver wouldn't be familiar with, Joseph spelled them out.
Alvino Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) No, that is the point of the description of how when a name or word that Joseph and Oliver wouldn't be familiar with, Joseph spelled them out.They didn't have the word sheum in their vocabulary, either. If they get a word they have never heard of before anyways, why not just get the name of that grain in English? The other post I wrote illustrates this problem. If JS knew what the symbols in the golden plates meant while translating, how did he know "sheum" when he had never heard the symbols pronounced? Edited February 14, 2013 by Alvino
amo Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 They didn't have the word sheum in their vocabulary, either. If they get a word they have never heard of before anyways, why not just get the name of that grain in English?The other post I wrote illustrates this problem. If JS knew what the symbols in the golden plates meant while translating, how did he know "sheum" when he had never heard the symbols pronounced?My friend, why was "taco" translated to English as "taco", or "guacamole" as, well, guess...?AMO
Alvino Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) My friend, why was "taco" translated to English as "taco", or "guacamole" as, well, guess...?AMOThose words have almost the same alphabet and people heard the sound of these words, neither of those happened when JS translated the BoM, as far as I can see. Knowing what the word means and knowing what the best translation is in the target language doesn't necessarily give you grounds for a transliteration. Edited February 15, 2013 by Alvino
cdowis Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) They didn't have the word sheum in their vocabulary, either. If they get a word they have never heard of before anyways, why not just get the name of that grain in English?The other post I wrote illustrates this problem. If JS knew what the symbols in the golden plates meant while translating, how did he know "sheum" when he had never heard the symbols pronounced?JS was very firm on the point that he would not tell anyone, even his closest associates, the mechanics of translation. As mentioned above, he would spell out the names (corintimr, for example), so we can assume that he spelled sheum out as well. Just another proper name. Edited February 15, 2013 by cdowis
Alvino Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) JS was very firm on the point that he would not tell anyone, even his closest associates, the mechanics of translation. As mentioned above, he would spell out the names (corintimr, for example), so we can assume that he spelled sheum out as well. Just another proper name.This means the translation was not limited to what JS knew in which case, why be given "sheum" and not just the English word of that grain? Supposedly he is translating a whole book centuries old of a very different culture, yet the name of a grain has to be transliterated? Rather weird. Edited February 15, 2013 by Alvino
TomHagen Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 This means the translation was not limited to what JS knew in which case, why be given "sheum" and not just the English word of that grain? Supposedly he is translating a whole book centuries old of a very different culture, yet the name of a grain has to be transliterated? Rather weird.Isn't it though?
Alvino Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) Isn't it though?It is weird and it is also not a very convenient position to take with regards to apologetics. Why not be given the English word? God wanted a few transliterations to be in the BoM as later evidences of its authenticity? Such grain had no name in English to begin with? These answers are weak and unconvincing towards showing the BoM plausible. Edited February 15, 2013 by Alvino
TomHagen Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 It is weird and it is also not a very convenient position to take with regards to apologetics. Why not be given the English word? God wanted a few transliterations to be in the BoM as later evidences of its authenticity? Such grain had no name in English to begin with? These answers are weak and unconvincing towards showing the BoM plausible.I must agree. He wanted a transliteration to survive as evidence? Yet he wiped clean the literal mountains of archaeological and genetic evidence that would have given exactly this? Apologists want it both ways. "Oh, the absence of archaeological and genetic evidence is intentional, because God wants us to work on faith alone. But you see this word? This one here - "sheum"? Well, that right there is proof of the near eastern origin of the Book of Mormon, no doubt!" *shakes head
cdowis Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Apologists want it both ways. "Oh, the absence of archaeological and genetic evidence is intentional, because God wants us to work on faith alone.In my 25 years of apologetics, I have only seen someone make that statement ONE time, . When I challenged him, he then admitted that he was not a Mormon, and was trying to make us look stupid and very typical of the Mormons. He thought it was very funny to pretend to be an apologist.The antimormons have themselves continued to repeat that phoney claim.CFR, please with a reference to a proven apologist. This is an antimormon claim with no factual basis. Edited February 16, 2013 by cdowis
bcuzbcuz Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 He used a different mechanism to break their unity of evil purpose. when people do not understand each other, they mistrust each other. I'm going to assume that you don't travel to foreign countries very much. I assume that because of the conclusion you make that if people don't understand one another, they then mistrust them. I travel, along with my wife, to at least three countries a year where we do not know the languages or even elementary phrases. And yet we purchase food, household articles, sometimes even tools, without having dictionaries or translations available. Hand gestures, a friendly face, drawing pictures, or merely trusting our luck gains us both the things we wish or gives us a completely new experience. We have ended up eating things we neither have the name of nor knowing what the food contains but have never had a bad experience. We might not enjoy the taste, although that is rare, but we have never even had upset stomachs.Throughout history, before money systems evolved, people would have bartered for food or tools or goods. That is hardly different to our experiences with foreign currencies. We just stretch out our hand with a variety of coins and the shopkeepers pluck our their payment. Most of the time we eat royally for pennies and spend many hours after the trip trying to recreate the taste sensation. The only time we have been cheated was at the Paris De Gaulle airport, at a currency exchange shop. The attendant there did a quick switch and gave us half of the true value of the currency. We only discovered the outcome when we checked our bank withdrawal slips upon returning home two weeks later.It is my experience that people, despite language barriers, are trusting and trustworthy. Maybe people who are untrusting get treated untrustworthily. The Biblical story of the tower of Babel seems to make that assumption.
volgadon Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Those words have almost the same alphabetThey do now, but are you truly suggesting that Central America used the Latin alphabet before the Spanish?
cdowis Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 This means the translation was not limited to what JS knew in which case, why be given "sheum" and not just the English word of that grain?That question has already been addressed.
Alvino Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 That question has already been addressed.Think I missed it, then. What post do you have in mind?
Recommended Posts