Verum Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Saytr, sounds like a perfecly good translation to me...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SatyrHow is this a good translation?By the wikipedia definition you provided, it appears that the KJV authors mistranslated the word from its original meaning and instead should have referenced either a "hairy one" or "goat" or "wild goat" , but not a satyr, which is a mythical creature that does not exist. And if Joseph is translating Nephi's words, he would not have used "satyr" since this would have been foreign to Nephi. Joesph is supposed to be translating the original meaning of text written as Nephi or as Isaiah wrote it, so he would not have included the KJV translation error.
Darren10 Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 You overlooked the possibility that Joseph went over to Harvard College and took a look at their copy of the Septuagint (LXX).LOL. Good point. As everybody knows he was a frequent library patron at Harvard. ;>)
Robert F. Smith Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing.Tell me the one example that you are certain would impress any and all objective nonLDS scholars.Hamilton Porter is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that nothing will ever impress everybody. Nevertheless, here are a couple of examples:A. At II Nephi 20:29 we have Ramath where the parallel text in Isaiah 10:29 has Ramah. Why the difference in the place-name? We do have Aramaic rāmātāʼ (variant rāmtāʼ) in the Isaiah Targum = Syriac rametaʼ , Rāmethā, but the ending in -t is almost always used in Hebrew to indicate a construct state, but not a stand-alone noun. The original Semitic form for the “feminine marker” was -at,1 which would be in keeping with early Egyptian2 as well. This marker is dropped later in Semitic, and its presence in the Book of Mormon shows it to be early and archaic there, meaning that the Brass Plates contain an older form of the place-name, a form that has preserved the earlier grammatical marker.1 Patrick Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics, 35; S. Moscati, ICGSL § 12.32-33.2 Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., 34 n.1a, “In status absolutus the t had probably fallen as early as O.K.,” citing ZÄS, 44:80 n. 2.----------------------------------------------------------------- B. At III Nephi 12:22, the Book of Mormon text follows the earliest and best manuscript evidence for the NT parallel text at Matthew 5:22 by leaving out the later addition of “without a cause” (Greek eike).3 It is absent from the earliest and most reliable texts, such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p64+67, minuscule MSS 1292, 1424, 2174, Ptolemy, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Cassian, most Vulgate, and Ethiopic, and is also absent from similar phrasing in the Gospel of the Nazarenes 4, as well as rabbinic texts: Talmud Babli Kalla Rabbati 54b (8, Gemara on Baraita), Yoma 9b (1:1), ‘Abot 2:16; Midrash Sifre Deuteronomy §§186-187; cf. Lev 19:17, Deut 19:11, Ps 19:13 (MT 19:14), I John 2:9, 3:14-15; II Enoch 44:2-3. In this and in many other cases (as Sidney Sperry pointed out long ago), the Book of Mormon text follows very early MS readings, about which Joseph could have known nothing.3 J. W. Welch in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, D. W. Parry, D. C. Peterson, and J. W. Welch, eds. (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 333-335; Welch in FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994), 164-167 – observing, on p. 166, that Stan Larson agrees that it was absent in the original. UBS3 has it as a glosse no earlier than the 2nd century A.D. (part of the so-called “Antiochian-Koine rescension”). Edited July 17, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
volgadon Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 How is this a good translation?By the wikipedia definition you provided, it appears that the KJV authors mistranslated the word from its original meaning and instead should have referenced either a "hairy one" or "goat" or "wild goat" , but not a satyr, which is a mythical creature that does not exist. And if Joseph is translating Nephi's words, he would not have used "satyr" since this would have been foreign to Nephi. Joesph is supposed to be translating the original meaning of text written as Nephi or as Isaiah wrote it, so he would not have included the KJV translation error.And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs (se'irim), after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.-Lev. 17:7.For the Levites left their open land and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not execute the priest's office unto the LORD;and he appointed him priests for the high places, and for the satyrs (se'irim), and for the calves which he had made.-2 Chron. 11:14-15.And the wild-cats shall meet with the jackals, and the satyr (seir) shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster (lilith) shall repose there, and shall find her a place of rest.-Isa. 34:14.The "mythical creature that does not exist" interpretation has legs to stand on. Especially look at the Isaiah verse I quoted, which mentions what we know for a certainty is a mythical creature. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Well one thing we can all agree on is that he took passages from the KJV bible and used them in the BoM....errors and allYeh, especially if we follow the Florida method of counting and uncounting ballots.
Verum Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Lachoneus;I'm very glad you added that link. It points to something I read from Jeff Lindsay who I recall saying something about how the Book of Mormon mentions sailing from an area which is not in the KJV but is found in other sources outside the KJV. Being vague on details I chose to completely leave this out of my #15 post. Yur link is what Lindsay must have cited (and accredited):(MT means "Masoretic Text" which is what the KJV relied upon to translate the old Testament)Either Joseph Smith made a lucky guess and included an addition in the Book of Mormon not found in the KJV of the Bible which inclusion is a perfectly legitimate inclusion on Joseph Smith's part as it is confirmable from sources outside the KJV or he simply had an original source by whic he translated from.UPDATE: here is the original Isaiah 2:16 in full. I included this for clarity of Tvedtnes' argument:http://www.lds.org/s.../isa/2?lang=engAlthough I can't say I have studied this one throughly, I actually think this is good evidence for the BOM if one is trying to prove that Joseph was restoring the original ancient text in meaning. 1 point for the apologists...
Robert F. Smith Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) How is this a good translation?By the wikipedia definition you provided, it appears that the KJV authors mistranslated the word from its original meaning and instead should have referenced either a "hairy one" or "goat" or "wild goat" , but not a satyr, which is a mythical creature that does not exist. And if Joseph is translating Nephi's words, he would not have used "satyr" since this would have been foreign to Nephi. Joesph is supposed to be translating the original meaning of text written as Nephi or as Isaiah wrote it, so he would not have included the KJV translation error.You forgot to mention the "dragons" of II Nephi 23:22, Mosiah 20:11, Alma 43:44, and "Rahab" in II Nephi 8:9.In any case, you are blaming the wrong party. The KJV translators were merely following earlier Bibles in using "satyr" (cf. the 1599 Geneva Bible). Scholars and reasonable people normally take such terms to be figurative or mythical in use. The Bible is, after all, literature as well as Scripture. Edited July 17, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Bob Crockett Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 As for Joseph using the archaic KJV style of language, virtually all translations of ancient documents in the 19th century used that same style, on into the early 20th century. Nowadays that style is unused, but we need to understand how things were actually done in Joseph's time.My opinion is that he was told to use formal English. Like the vous form used in Spanish but never in the Americas. Elizabethan. Not used any more. It isn't KJV, it is what KJV used. Like Milton. 1
Zakuska Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) How is this a good translation?By the wikipedia definition you provided, it appears that the KJV authors mistranslated the word from its original meaning and instead should have referenced either a "hairy one" or "goat" or "wild goat" , but not a satyr, which is a mythical creature that does not exist. And if Joseph is translating Nephi's words, he would not have used "satyr" since this would have been foreign to Nephi. Joesph is supposed to be translating the original meaning of text written as Nephi or as Isaiah wrote it, so he would not have included the KJV translation error."sa'ir" to "satyr" God heavens not even the Arabs can keep things straight. Edited July 18, 2012 by Zakuska
SamIam Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Jesus also quoted from the OT and quoted them with the errors. Big whoop. It means he had read the OT texts.I agree with your perspective and maybe we might say that, it means Christ was the author of the Old Testament and it reads somewhere in the general way he gave it. Then we might agree that he was the author of the Book of Mormon and as a second witness...a law that is very significant in proving truth...as a second witness a few adjustments were made in the Book of Mormon where it did not agree with His original on points he thought significant.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Verum, on 17 July 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:How is this a good translation?By the wikipedia definition you provided, it appears that the KJV authors mistranslated the word from its original meaning and instead should have referenced either a "hairy one" or "goat" or "wild goat" , but not a satyr, which is a mythical creature that does not exist. And if Joseph is translating Nephi's words, he would not have used "satyr" since this would have been foreign to Nephi. Joesph is supposed to be translating the original meaning of text written as Nephi or as Isaiah wrote it, so he would not have included the KJV translation error."sa'ir" to "satyr" God heavens not even the Arabs can keep things straight.Since satyr is a Greek word, it may have been employed for Hebrew sa'ir by the Septuaginta simply due to similar sound (the squiggle between the a and the i is a Semitic gutteral not used in European languages, but is quite audible and substantial; hence the -t- is not an unreasonable substitute).
Recommended Posts