ksfisher Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 JAHS, Out of curiosity, do you speak a second language? If yes, then you should understand that when translating from one language to another, the translator often times needs to pick which words to use. Also, when translating a familiar passage a translator will often times use a previous translation. This is done because his audience is already knowledgeable with the words and phrases that another translator has used earlier. What seems to be the case with the Book of Mormon is that, when similar ideas were being taught as were found in the Bible, Joseph Smith was inspired to use words and phrases from the Bible. The intended audience was familiar with those words and would easily be able to understand what was being taught. 2
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 28 minutes ago, JAHS said: Says who? Who made up that rule? It doesn't make any sense to me. The Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God"; not by Joseph Smith all by himself. God is going to make sure the words are translated into the words and meanings that were intended; not by whatever Joseph Smith decides in his mind he wants them to be. When I read those words the "meaning" you refer to that I get is that Jesus said those things to His disciples 400 years earlier. Although I am not a professional, full-time translator, I do spend a significant portion of my time translating documents, questionnaires, and surveys. I'm kind of the unofficial translator in my office of 50 people. Languages do not have one-to-one correspondences with each other. There is no word in Spanish, for example, for the English word paratransit, nor a word in English for the Spanish word consuegro. In those cases, translations can only approximate meanings. And even then, the cultural context that birthed the terms carries important nuance, and this nuance is lost in translation. And this is only an example at the word-level of translation. Often times, when translating, I have to re-write entire sentences, sometime forfeiting important nuance, in order to just capture the general sense of the original. Because of this, two sentences that express identical concepts (with differences in nuance, local cultural flair, or authorial quirks) may get translated the exact same way. 4
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, ksfisher said: JAHS, Out of curiosity, do you speak a second language? If yes, then you should understand that when translating from one language to another, the translator often times needs to pick which words to use. Also, when translating a familiar passage a translator will often times use a previous translation. This is done because his audience is already knowledgeable with the words and phrases that another translator has used earlier. What seems to be the case with the Book of Mormon is that, when similar ideas were being taught as were found in the Bible, Joseph Smith was inspired to use words and phrases from the Bible. The intended audience was familiar with those words and would easily be able to understand what was being taught. I agree that in some cases that may have happened with the Book of Mormon Translation when teaching general concepts or doctrines are involved. But in the case of these scriptures it would have been a mistake to do that because the words Moroni said specifically refer to something Jesus said 400 years earlier; it involves an actual event and not just doctrine. In my opinion in this particular case the practice of copying something directly from the Bible can not apply. It is easier for me to believe that Jesus did actually say those words 400 years earlier; regardless of when people say those words were placed in the Bible. Maybe they are wrong about that.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, JAHS said: Def. of Vorlage: "a position in which a skier leans forward but keeps the heels in contact with the skis." ksfisher correctly defined the word for you, but I will be happy to clarify it if necessary. Moroni said Jesus said that to His disciples: "For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry (3 Nep 28: 12), yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" There are many agrapha of Jesus for which ultimate sources are unknown or in question. That does not mean that he did not say them. I just don't think the 400 year later explanation is a valid argument. A valid argument for what? I was responding to Gervin's failure to understand that agrapha of Jesus (first century) which supposedly show up in the second century, are not being quoted by Moroni until the fourth century. He not only couldn't get his chronology straight, but he completely misunderstood the translation process, in which translators take words and phrases in the source language and render them in the reception language. In doing so, one is free to use any good equivalent phrase or word which does justice to the original. If you haven't done extensive translating, you won't necessarily understand what that means. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 On 2/24/2016 at 1:05 PM, Johnnie Cake said: haha...fat chance of that ever happening... Well, then, please give us your learned opinion on what Gervin said.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: Says who? Who made up that rule? It doesn't make any sense to me. The Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God"; not by Joseph Smith all by himself. God is going to make sure the words are translated into the words and meanings that were intended; not by whatever Joseph Smith decides in his mind he wants them to be. When I read those words the "meaning" you refer to that I get is that Jesus said those things to His disciples 400 years earlier. Professional translators follow that rule every day for the very good reason that it works. Those who don't know how to translate will naturally imagine all sorts of things which may or may not work, and which have nothing to do with the real world. Since the BofM was translated into English in around 1521, we cannot blame Joseph Smith for any infelicitous or even stock, formulaic phrasing.
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Professional translators follow that rule every day for the very good reason that it works. Those who don't know how to translate will naturally imagine all sorts of things which may or may not work, and which have nothing to do with the real world. Since the BofM was translated into English in around 1521, we cannot blame Joseph Smith for any infelicitous or even stock, formulaic phrasing. Did you mean to say the Bible was translated into English in around 1521? Smith was not a professional translator. He didn't know that rule or how to do it at all except by the power and gift of God who would have made certain that such an important volume of scripture was done correctly. Like I said earlier in the case of these particular scriptures in Mormon it would have been a mistake to copy from the Bible because the words Moroni said specifically refer to something Jesus said 400 years earlier; it involves an actual event and not just doctrine (as in the case for some of the Isaiah verses or other things Jesus said to the Nephites that are repeated in the Bible).
Johnnie Cake Posted February 25, 2016 Author Posted February 25, 2016 50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, then, please give us your learned opinion on what Gervin said. Quote In truth, you will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of a written or spoken Egyptian or Hebrew language in the New World, and the Book of Mormon itself testifies to a 19th century construct as a pastiche consisting of numerous outside influences and sources. my post was directed to this...fat chance that you would ever admit to his assessment...why was I wrong?
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, JAHS said: Did you mean to say the Bible was translated into English in around 1521? Smith was not a professional translator. He didn't know that rule or how to do it at all except by the power and gift of God who would have made certain that such an important volume of scripture was done correctly. Like I said earlier in the case of these particular scriptures in Mormon it would have been a mistake to copy from the Bible because the words Moroni said specifically refer to something Jesus said 400 years earlier; it involves an actual event and not just doctrine (as in the case for some of the Isaiah verses or other things Jesus said to the Nephites that are repeated in the Bible). Has nothing to do with a whether or not one is a professional translator. It has everything to do with the nature of languages. Even the best translation from one language to another can do no more than provide a close approximation of the original thought. In order to capture the meaning, a translation has to restructure whole paragraphs, and choose what nuances from the original language are going to be sacrificed in order to produce clarity in the destination language. Some simple examples: In Spanish, you don't marry your spouse, you marry yourself to her (casarse con tu esposa). You don't like swimming, but rather, swimming is pleasing to you (me gusto nadar). You don't like other people, either, instead, they fall good to you (me cae bien mi amgio). None of these simple phrases are ever translated word for word, but in translating them to English, you lose some nuance and flavor from the original language. Even a divinely inspired translation is not going to fix this issue. It's just the nature of human language. Edited February 25, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon 1
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Even a divinely inspired translation is not going to fix this issue. If it is translated by the gift and power of god, everything should be fixed. Otherwise it's just one man translating a foreign language and is subject to the limitations you describe. You guys are saying the same things over and over and I get it, but you are not really addressing the specific verses in question in Mormon 9.
omni Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Has nothing to do with a whether or not one is a professional translator. It has everything to do with the nature of languages. Even the best translation from one language to another can do no more than provide a close approximation of the original thought. In order to capture the meaning, a translation has to restructure whole paragraphs, and choose what nuances from the original language are going to be sacrificed in order to produce clarity in the destination language. You are clearly mistaken. Approximately half the verses in the BoM that are also in the Bible are verbatim translations. You can continue to rely on the arm of the flesh and all your fancy training, but I'm sticking with the Lord on this one.
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, omni said: You are clearly mistaken. Approximately half the verses in the BoM that are also in the Bible are verbatim translations. You can continue to rely on the arm of the flesh and all your fancy training, but I'm sticking with the Lord on this one. Any verbatim translation from one language to another is going to come out sounding rather non-sensical. Language structures, grammar, and cultural reference points are just too different. A verbatim translation from Russian to English, for example would lack any articles whatsoever. Then too, cultural allegories can't be translated verbatim, but must be rendered into something that will be intelligible in the destination language. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Temba, his arms wide. I, too believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. But I also know the there are words, phrases, and concepts in Hebrew and, for lack of a better term, Nephitish, that don't exist in English and vice versa. The translation process, whether aided by God or not, needs to take these differences into account. Edited February 26, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon
Gervin Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 5 hours ago, JAHS said: Did you mean to say the Bible was translated into English in around 1521? No, he said the same thing earlier in this thread about the Book of Mormon. I'm sure it's all explained in citations he'll provide.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: my post was directed to this...fat chance that you would ever admit to his assessment...why was I wrong? Yes, and I said: " Well, then, please give us your learned opinion on what Gervin said" Perhaps you could expand on his blanket statement with something substantive. Gervin either doesn't know how, or is fearful of doing so. C'mon Johnnie. Say something meaningful.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 2 hours ago, omni said: You are clearly mistaken. Approximately half the verses in the BoM that are also in the Bible are verbatim translations. You can continue to rely on the arm of the flesh and all your fancy training, but I'm sticking with the Lord on this one. Well, you can't go wrong by sticking with the Lord. However, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about this subject on this board, then you need to engage the issues in a serious, scholarly manner. I am of the opinion that the Lord gave us brains for a reason -- so that we would use them (as he explained it to Oliver Cowdery). The Lord expects us to think and make real decisions. You might want to cogitate on why the KJV translators cribbed nearly everything from previous translations. So, why can't the BofM be afforded the same opportunity? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 5 hours ago, JAHS said: Did you mean to say the Bible was translated into English in around 1521? No. I meant what I said: The BofM was translated into Early Modern English in around 1521 (early 16th century). In 1828-29, Joseph smith merely read that translation as it appeared on his stone -- and his scribes copied it down. See Dan Peterson at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609214/The-very-surprising-language-of-the-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all , and see also the anonymous comments at http://bookofmormontranslation.org/a-very-strange-text/ . Smith was not a professional translator. He didn't know that rule or how to do it at all except by the power and gift of God who would have made certain that such an important volume of scripture was done correctly. The Lord said that he speaks to man in man's human language and according to man's understanding (imperfect as it is). The result is always flawed and fallible. D&C 1:24, II Nephi 31:3 Like I said earlier in the case of these particular scriptures in Mormon it would have been a mistake to copy from the Bible because the words Moroni said specifically refer to something Jesus said 400 years earlier; it involves an actual event and not just doctrine (as in the case for some of the Isaiah verses or other things Jesus said to the Nephites that are repeated in the Bible). Jesus and his scribes and translators are certainly free to use whatever formulaic or stock phrases they wish to use in rendering the original (Vorlage). That is always the way real translations are done. Much of the NT is quotation from the OT and other sources. Often verbatim. Does that invalidate it? Indeed, OT prophets often quote each other -- verbatim. Is this a problem for you? 1
JAHS Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, you can't go wrong by sticking with the Lord. However, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about this subject on this board, then you need to engage the issues in a serious, scholarly manner. I am of the opinion that the Lord gave us brains for a reason -- so that we would use them (as he explained it to Oliver Cowdery). The Lord expects us to think and make real decisions. You might want to cogitate on why the KJV translators cribbed nearly everything from previous translations. So, why can't the BofM be afforded the same opportunity? I'm still waiting for someone to explain Mormon 9 to me, which can not be explained by claiming that Joseph Smith just used what is said in Mark or other scriptures. Moroni specifically said that Jesus said it when He was there 400 years earlier. If Joseph did just repeat what was in Mark, it was a mistake to do so because the mark scriptures were written long after Jesus supposedly said those words when He visited the Nephites. In my opinion Jesus really did say those things to the Nephites,; I trust the Book of Mormon more than the Bible on this; but I can't explain how the exact words end up in Mark later on. Could be there is no answer to this question.
JAHS Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: No. I meant what I said: The BofM was translated into Early Modern English in around 1521 (early 16th century) OK you just lost me on that one. I read your links and what is proposed is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Good bye.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 41 minutes ago, JAHS said: OK you just lost me on that one. I read your links and what is proposed is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Good bye. It is strange. No question, but those are the facts. How we explain those facts is another matter. 1
omni Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, you can't go wrong by sticking with the Lord. However, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about this subject on this board, then you need to engage the issues in a serious, scholarly manner. I am of the opinion that the Lord gave us brains for a reason -- so that we would use them (as he explained it to Oliver Cowdery). The Lord expects us to think and make real decisions. You might want to cogitate on why the KJV translators cribbed nearly everything from previous translations. So, why can't the BofM be afforded the same opportunity? Hmmm, so I'm curious how and why this would have actually occurred. So are we to believe that as the words are appearing on the seer stone, when Joseph reaches a verse that also appears in Isaiah, he then switches over to his KJV Bible, looks up the scripture and uses that version? Not only does this contradict witnesses statements about the translation, but it's completely impractical and illogical.
Brant Gardner Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The BofM was translated into Early Modern English in around 1521 (early 16th century). Interestingly, Carmack has recently shifted his timeframe. He now places the translation after that of the KJV (which is chronologically better because the evidence won't allow it to be earlier). However, I must note that I disagree with both the timing and the suggestion that someone other than Joseph was responsible for the English translation. 1
stemelbow Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: Interestingly, Carmack has recently shifted his timeframe. He now places the translation after that of the KJV (which is chronologically better because the evidence won't allow it to be earlier). However, I must note that I disagree with both the timing and the suggestion that someone other than Joseph was responsible for the English translation. I hope you win out on this, because I can't imagine an earlier translation time.
thesometimesaint Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 17 hours ago, JAHS said: If it is translated by the gift and power of god, everything should be fixed. Otherwise it's just one man translating a foreign language and is subject to the limitations you describe. You guys are saying the same things over and over and I get it, but you are not really addressing the specific verses in question in Mormon 9. Proposition from facts not in evidence. The Book of Mormon itself claims there may be errors.
thesometimesaint Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In 1828-29, Joseph smith merely read that translation as it appeared on his stone -- and his scribes copied it down. That is not supportable from the Scriptures. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.7?lang=eng
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 3 hours ago, omni said: Hmmm, so I'm curious how and why this would have actually occurred. So are we to believe that as the words are appearing on the seer stone, when Joseph reaches a verse that also appears in Isaiah, he then switches over to his KJV Bible, looks up the scripture and uses that version? Not only does this contradict witnesses statements about the translation, but it's completely impractical and illogical. You are introducing a step which is not necessary. The translation was completed in Early Modern English centuries before Joseph was born. He had only to read it off. No necessity of consulting a Bible, since those sections had already been completed and Joseph was merely reading them off the stone. Whoever did the actual translation by the gift and power of God could presumably have depended on that same power to render biblical passages in a style familiar in various English translation already available even before the KJV -- even though Carmack may have shifted to a time shortly after the appearance of the KJV (for all we know, Miles Smith, editor of the KJV, may be the translator of the Book of Mormon).
Recommended Posts