Ouagadougou Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, ksfisher said: So does that make Christ's command to have faith, repent, and be baptized in His name any less imperative? (Not saying that there is no archeological or linguistic evidence at present, and no DNA evidence that will be discovered in the future.) No, but if you look at some of the most culminating events in the BoM (3 Nephi), they are just copied straight from the Bible. And Christ used the exact same language in the BoM (as in the Bible) to teach these people faith, repentance and baptism. 3 Nephi 12:41: "41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Why would Jesus use a Roman measurement in his parables for the people in the Americas, who wouldn't be familiar with such terms and/or measurements? "mile, any of various units of distance, such as the statute mile of 5,280 feet (1.609 km). It originated from the Roman mille passus, or “thousand paces,” which measured 5,000 Roman feet." https://www.britannica.com/science/mile Christ couldn't adapt his way of speaking, parables, etc. to the culture, language and environment in which these people lived? Instead, it's just words copied straight from the King James Bible to teach them... Chapter 12 Jesus calls and commissions the twelve disciples—He delivers to the Nephites a discourse similar to the Sermon on the Mount—He speaks the Beatitudes—His teachings transcend and take precedence over the law of Moses—Men are commanded to be perfect even as He and His Father are perfect—Compare Matthew 5. About A.D. 34. Chapter 13 Jesus teaches the Nephites the Lord’s Prayer—They are to lay up treasures in heaven—The twelve disciples in their ministry are commanded to take no thought for temporal things—Compare Matthew 6. About A.D. 34. Chapter 14 Jesus commands: Judge not; ask of God; beware of false prophets—He promises salvation to those who do the will of the Father—Compare Matthew 7. About A.D. 34.
ksfisher Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: No, but if you look at some of the most culminating events in the BoM (3 Nephi), they are just copied straight from the Bible. And Christ used the exact same language in the BoM (as in the Bible) to teach these people faith, repentance and baptism. 3 Nephi 12:41: "41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Why would Jesus use a Roman measurement in his parables for the people in the Americas, who wouldn't be familiar with such terms and/or measurements? "mile, any of various units of distance, such as the statute mile of 5,280 feet (1.609 km). It originated from the Roman mille passus, or “thousand paces,” which measured 5,000 Roman feet." https://www.britannica.com/science/mile Christ couldn't adapt his way of speaking, parables, etc. to the culture, language and environment in which these people lived? Instead, it's just words copied straight from the King James Bible to teach them... Chapter 12 Jesus calls and commissions the twelve disciples—He delivers to the Nephites a discourse similar to the Sermon on the Mount—He speaks the Beatitudes—His teachings transcend and take precedence over the law of Moses—Men are commanded to be perfect even as He and His Father are perfect—Compare Matthew 5. About A.D. 34. Chapter 13 Jesus teaches the Nephites the Lord’s Prayer—They are to lay up treasures in heaven—The twelve disciples in their ministry are commanded to take no thought for temporal things—Compare Matthew 6. About A.D. 34. Chapter 14 Jesus commands: Judge not; ask of God; beware of false prophets—He promises salvation to those who do the will of the Father—Compare Matthew 7. About A.D. 34. Despite the attempts of several people on this thread to help you understand how translations work you're not seeming to understand. Of course Christ never said the word "mile" to anyone, in Palestine or America, during His mortal ministry. Mile was placed in both the Book of Mormon and the bible during the translation process so that the target audience of those books would understand what the Savior was teaching, and not just be understandable to the original audience (which He didn't speak to in English). This book by Brant Gardner is a good place to start in understanding the translation process of the Book of Mormon. https://smile.amazon.com/Gift-Power-Translating-Book-Mormon/dp/1589581318/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1490101951&sr=8-3 Edited March 21, 2017 by ksfisher 1
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: "41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Why would Jesus use a Roman measurement in his parables for the people in the Americas, who wouldn't be familiar with such terms and/or measurements? ...Christ couldn't adapt his way of speaking, parables, etc. to the culture, language and environment in which these people lived? Those of us who were born in regions that have adopted the metric system are ever-so-deeply affronted by your failure to convert to kilometers, and on that trifle deem you to be a false prophet. For future reference: (1.60934) And the second mile: (another 1.60934) And a genuine call to repentance. Edited March 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7 2
ksfisher Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Those of us who were born in regions that have adopted the metric system are ever-so-deeply affronted by your failure to convert to kilometers, and on that trifle deem you to be a false prophet. For future reference: (1.60934) And the second mile: (another 1.60934) And a genuine call to repentance. And whosoever shall compel thee to go 1.60934 kilometers, go with him a second 1.60934 kilometers. I like it. It gives the scripture a nice sense of the modern while at the same time preserving the natural rhythm and flow of the original manuscript. Edited March 21, 2017 by ksfisher 2
clarkgoble Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Why would Jesus use a Roman measurement in his parables for the people in the Americas, who wouldn't be familiar with such terms and/or measurements? Christ couldn't adapt his way of speaking, parables, etc. to the culture, language and environment in which these people lived? Instead, it's just words copied straight from the King James Bible to teach them... Christ could but it doesn't necessarily mean he did. And of course whatever he spoke he likely adapted. But the loose translation model has extensive use of KJV phrasing to translate loosely similar ideas. There's also the issue that most likely there wasn't someone taking shorthand of what Jesus spake. So the question of how what he said was transfigured both in the NT as well as the Book of Mormon is a question too. 1
clarkgoble Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Ok. But it was written specifically to the Lamanites, who are non-existent at this point--lost in some remote jungle in Central America, along with their DNA and any archeological and linguistic evidence. They are non-existent as a self-identified group called the Lamanites. But the text is talking of the descendants of that group and not the group itself so much. Now we can debate the point of any lineage based concern once you go past very many generations. It doesn't take long before everyone is related. So it's worth wondering what theological significance this could have. But the idea of promises to these groups seems perfectly conceivable. 3
clarkgoble Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 16 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: If English words appeared on the seer stone (and JS was so familiar with these people, culture, etc.) and he translated by the power of God, how could he get certain words wrong? Millions killed in battle? Does a million just mean thousands? Horse is a tapir? A wheel/chariot are something else...and the list goes on a on. So a "proper translation" by the power of God means tons of anachronisms, words with alternate meanings and numerous changes (for the most correct book)? Again these have been answered whereas I notice that rather than you answering questions posed you simply change the subject. I'm sensing a pattern here. As has been stated multiple times in the past two weeks' I've been posting here, the text is a loose translation that uses KJV phrases and apparently theological or rhetorical phrases Joseph had been exposed to in his environment. The words would reflect those phrases so long as the underlying ideas were close enough. This means that the unit of translation isn't done at the word level. Now again you may not like that due to your expectations. Presumably if you were doing the translation and knew both languages you'd have done it differently. Which is fine. I'm not sure that's much of an argument against the translation as it is. Since rather than answering that basic question you just keep changing topic, I'm assuming you don't want to engage on what constitutes an acceptable translation and simply want to keep presenting quips that don't fit your expectations. Again, the fundamental issue is your expectations and why you expect the rest of us to share them. To your latest quips, remember that the assumption of more scholarly Mormons is that the text is authentically written by ancient people and thus reflects the styles we encounter in such texts. I recognize again that this won't line up with your expectation which is clearly that the text ought reflect 20th century positivist concepts of proper history writings and objectivity. I'd just say again that I think that an incorrect way to read the text nor does it bear on how it is correct. If we look at typical ancient writing they exaggerate numbers to convey large amounts or use other types of idioms. The two standard explanations here are that the numbers reflect military units that often were named after numbers or that the numbers are themselves exaggerated. So a centurion was in charge of 100 men in the Roman army but typically there weren't exactly 100 men. This wasn't just done among the ancients but you see the same effect among the Spanish in the new world when they relate numbers of their enemies. The main problem for apologists is that no text from the periods in question survived the destructions by the Spanish of any new world records they found. So we don't know how they described their own battles nor the sizes. Since we don't have those records the best we can do is turn to the ancient near east where we find just that kind of exaggeration going on. So Herodotus when he talks of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes says Xerxes has well over five million troops. Historians of the ancient world usually just accept that those sorts of exaggerations are part and parcel of how the ancients wrote of large numbers in wars. What makes this so interesting are not just the large numbers, often in the millions, but even how the ancients describe whole nations being destroyed in a fashion that sounds eerily familiar to those reading the Book of Mormon on the "destruction" of the Jaredites and Nephites. Again, it might not fit our expectations in the 21st century of how to write about numbers. But if the book is what it purports to be we ought judge it not by our standard of history writing but the type of histories written in the era it purports to be from. 1
ksfisher Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: So a centurion was in charge of 100 men in the Roman army but typically there weren't exactly 100 men. As an aside, but also worthy to consider because it doesn't fit our expectations, a centurion only commanded 80 men (if they were at full strength). http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy.html 1
Recommended Posts