An academic translation of the Book of Mormon

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not concede the word is a mistake in the first place. Perhaps it was a good translation of what was said.

As to your “valid arguments” I doubt you know enough about them to have an opinion worth caring about.

All your criticisms I have seen read like copy-pastes from standard banal critic sites and you have yet to display an understanding of any of the arguments you are supposedly making and that ignorance is best shown by your marked inability to engage in discussion about the issues you bring in. I have no desire to argue with what amounts to an automated copy-bot.

Maybe someone else will but I doubt it. This thread is hopefully too interesting for anyone to engage in a dull duel with someone as witless as yourself over items that have been rehashed endlessly already.

Your response sounds more like a way to avoid addressing these "valid arguments," therefore, you shift the focus to my supposed inability or lack of knowledge on this subject.  And if it is so utterly dull and painful, then why even respond to me in the first place?  

BTW, these are my words, so I'm not copying...but thanks for the compliment (I'll be sure to copy something below though because of your love for asking "CFR").  If you were familiar with this subject, then you might realize that even FAIR doesn't have a reasonable explanation for King James Bible errors being in the BoM.  

I so gracefully copied this FAIR reference for you below in order to help educate you a bit more on this subject:

"The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the Bible, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version. If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible? ^[1]

We do not know the specific mechanism by which the biblical passages were included in the translation, therefore we cannot answer this question based upon current historical information. The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV#Question:_If_the_Book_of_Mormon_is_an_accurate_translation.2C_why_would_it_contain_translational_errors_that_exist_in_the_King_James_Bible.3F

So...in other words...they (apologists) can't explain why these King James Bible errors are in the BoM.  As if often occurs, IMO, they just use the all-too-common justification/expression:  "it was performed by the gift and power of God."

 

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that we both responded to the same post from @Ouagadougou.  His/her question seemed simple enough to me, so I gave my answer.

If I had felt that @Ouagadougou didn't have a "right to demand a refutation" or wasn't "someone able to engage on the topic", I would have just ignored the question.

I probably should have ignored it but I found my way more fun.

[Palerider]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of the 1611 KJV phrasing is not an accurate translation of the biblical text (Greek & Hebrew) and the reader can easily be led astray.  So a more accurate English text can have great value just for that reason alone.  The same applies to the Book of Mormon text, which consists largely of EarlyModernEnglish phrasing.  It would help if it were in modern English instead.

For example, we have the confusion in the text between homophones such as "right" and "rite," or "strait" and "straight," or between "Son" and "sun."  We can immediately see the difference based on the Greek & Hebrew text, which can utterly change the meaning.  The Isaiah quotations are particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation.

From the Angel Moroni:

"These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear."

Don't go trying to improve on God now...

The only valid translation is the original. Any changes made after the original, fall under the clause of "Steadying the Ark".

😎

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Your response sounds more like a way to avoid addressing these "valid arguments," therefore, you shift the focus to my supposed inability or lack of knowledge on this subject.  And if it is so utterly dull and painful, then why even respond to me in the first place?  

To annoy you and to amuse thought that was obvious.

And no, I already knew FAIR does not have much of an answer to that concern but thanks for your attempt at educating me. It was very kind of you to condescend to copy and paste some more.

[Thinking]

This hypothetical translation would surely contain the prediction that the Red Sox would finally win the World Series in 2004.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

This hypothetical translation would surely contain the prediction that the Red Sox would finally win the World Series in 2004.

No, that is with the great prophecies of Ether in the sealed portion.

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To annoy you and to amuse thought that was obvious.

And no, I already knew FAIR does not have much of an answer to that concern but thanks for your attempt at educating me. It was very kind of you to condescend to copy and paste some more.

You remind me of my friend's Chihuahua that is all bark, but no bite...just trying to annoy really...but, FYI, I just ignore the bark, as I step over the Chihuahua.

From what I read, you seemed more frustrated than anything...and you agree that there is no valid explanation for King James Bible errors in the BoM, even according to FAIR.  Well, if that is the case, then, IMO, it seems like a VERY valid argument and issue that I raised here in this thread concerning the BoM.  And if you have already hashed this subject out a million times and it's so dull for you, then way engage?  This reminds me of someone I know who hates chicken, but keeps going to eat at Chick-Fil-A.    

[Rivers]

On 11/28/2018 at 9:49 PM, strappinglad said:

Not gonna happen because the first thing the ' scholars' would do is pry the sealed portion apart. Someone would then take pics and leak the whole thing to the internet and the amateurs would blow up social media with their educated interpretations. The Vatican would then claim it and bury it in the secret archives. The Illuminati ....well , don't get me started.

They'd be shocked if they tried to pry open the sealed portion.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Did the word "adieu" then appear on the seer stone by mistake?  And what about the numerous anachronisms and King James Bible errors (which somehow appear in a translation of an ancient text)? Those are very valid arguments, IMO.  

Adieu is an English word borrowed early on from the French language (as are many other words) and commonly used from the time of Shakespeare to the19th-Century. It is no more a problem than thousands of other borrowed words such as government, priest, prayer, or preach. To bid adieu is perfectly good English meaning farewell, or literally “I commend you to God,” as in the Spanish adiós.

For example, from 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, 

Quote

[.] ADIEU', Adu'. [.] Farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends. [.] ADIEU', n. A farewell, or commendation to the care of God; as an everlasting adieu.

....and George Washington’s Farewell Orders to the Continental Armies...

Quote

To the Staff, for their alacrity and exactness in performing the Duties of their several Departments. And to the Non Commissioned Officers and private Soldiers, for their extraordinary patience in suffering, as well as their invincible fortitude in Action. To the various branches of the Army the General takes this last and solemn opportunity of professing his inviolable attachment and friendship. He wishes more than bare professions were in his power, that he were really able to be useful to them all in future life. He flatters himself however, they will do him the justice to believe, that whatever could with propriety be attempted by him has been done, and being now to conclude these his last public Orders, to take his ultimate leave in a short time of the military character, and to bid a final adieu to the Armies he has so long had the honor to Command, he can only again offer in their behalf his recommendations to their grateful country, and his prayers to the God of Armies.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Palerider said:

From the Angel Moroni:

"These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear."

Don't go trying to improve on God now...

The only valid translation is the original. Any changes made after the original, fall under the clause of "Steadying the Ark".

😎

We now have only about 28% of the Original Manuscript of the BofM, and most people don't have a copy of that.  As the editor of the first two editions of the Book of Mormon Critical Text (FARMS, 1984-1987), I did what I could to provide access to the best original English readings of the text, and Royal Skousen has done even better than that subsequently (1988-present).  Skousen's Yale edition of the BofM is the best witness we have to the original text.  The changes made in the various editions from 1830 onward are attempts by Joseph Smith and the publishers to modernize the grammar and spelling.

Whether Moroni was attesting to the excellence of the EarlyModernEnglish version of the BofM which was produced several centuries before Joseph Smith read it to his scribes is not entirely clear.  After all, we are told repeatedly that human language is deficient in communicating the things of God (D&C 1:24, 67:5, 2 Nephi 31:3,  Mormon 9:33, Ether 12:40).

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

........................

My personal belief is that the plates, as described by witnesses, could not possibly contain all 531 pages that we have in the printed English version (reformed Egyptian would have to be some miraculous shorthand). 

Your personal beliefs may be strong, but they are unrelated to scholarship.  The English BofM we have today has a lot of vowels and consonants not needed in ancient Egyptian.  Indeed, with the use of typical Egyptian hieratic or demotic logograms, the BofM could easily be produced on the available golden plates, as I explain in my “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/228 .  As Champollion himself explained, hieratic or demotic Egyptian was in fact "shorthand."

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that with the lost 116 pages the length translated would be around 700-1000 pages depending upon how one views that missing text. You then have the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon which was usually seen as half or more of the plates. That puts it up to around 2000 - 3000 pages total for a translation of all the plates. (Assuming the sealed portion uses the same shorthand as the main Mormon and Nephi plates)

If the reformed Egyptian isn't a variant on hieratic but a shorthand and possibly mnemonic shorthand then that's less of an issue.

No more than standard Egyptian hieratic or demotic is needed to fit on the available plates.

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's interesting that looking at the Kirtland Egyptian papers that Joseph clearly assumed that the Egyptian of the papyri and the "Egyptian" of the plates were related. Clearly they weren't for various reasons related to the copies of BoM characters we have. But Joseph thought they word and the effort to work out what the Egyptian was based upon a mnemonic shorthand tied to degrees. That is completely erroneous since the Egyptian on the papyri was standard Egyptian and thus mostly logographic (representing words or morphemes) giving a book of breathings. But why did Joseph think it was this complicated mnemonic system? Possibly based upon the "translations" of Egyptian that Athanasius Kircher had produced two centuries earlier.  But it is also possible he'd heard from Moroni about the plates and there were indications they were mnemonic in a fashion that the Kirtland Egyptian papers reflected.

That is the Book of Mormon characters weren't related to hieratic but were a weird shorthand tied to degrees (multiple changes in meaning tied to a single character) While the shorthands Joseph would have been exposed to weren't ideograms but attempted to be lossless of information and minimize ambiguity they did have single characters representing multiple words.  

We have no reason to assume that KEP shows that Joseph actually articulated a belief in hieratic tied to degrees.

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Very speculative I know, but also a good explanation of the data. Although I'd also acknowledge there are no known ideogram shorthands of that sort in the ANE that we know of. The closest would be Akkadian ideograms. 

Ancient Egyptian biliteral, triliteral, etc., determinant logograms were regularly used in hieratic and demotic in what Champollion called "shorthand," and were most likely known to the owners of the Brass Plates and the Book of Mormon Plates.  Indeed, Moroni specifies that he uses the Reformed Egyptian solely due to space-saving considerations.  He even admits the negative impact that has on his ability to express himself accurately (Moroni 9:32-33).

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Considering how things went when we got the Papyri back from the Metropolitan Museum and found a Regular Egyptian Rosetta Stone, I would predict absolute disaster for the current translation of the Book of Mormon.

Au contraire, mon frere.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

....................................

"The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the Bible, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version. If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible? ^[1]

We do not know the specific mechanism by which the biblical passages were included in the translation, therefore we cannot answer this question based upon current historical information. The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV#Question:_If_the_Book_of_Mormon_is_an_accurate_translation.2C_why_would_it_contain_translational_errors_that_exist_in_the_King_James_Bible.3F

So...in other words...they (apologists) can't explain why these King James Bible errors are in the BoM.  As if often occurs, IMO, they just use the all-too-common justification/expression:  "it was performed by the gift and power of God."

You have here misled the reader by quoting a question on the FAIRMORMON site which is answered in extenso.  You leave the explanation out. As with your false statement on adieu, you have misled the reader into thinking it is in some sense out of place.  On each claim, you are wrong.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your personal beliefs may be strong, but they are unrelated to scholarship.  The English BofM we have today has a lot of vowels and consonants not needed in ancient Egyptian.  Indeed, with the use of typical Egyptian hieratic or demotic logograms, the BofM could easily be produced on the available golden plates, as I explain in my “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/228 .  As Champollion himself explained, hieratic or demotic Egyptian was in fact "shorthand."

Thanks for the info. I’ll read the article.  Have you done the research and math to estimate how many plates there could have been in the set Joseph received?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You remind me of my friend's Chihuahua that is all bark, but no bite...just trying to annoy really...but, FYI, I just ignore the bark, as I step over the Chihuahua.

From what I read, you seemed more frustrated than anything...and you agree that there is no valid explanation for King James Bible errors in the BoM, even according to FAIR.  Well, if that is the case, then, IMO, it seems like a VERY valid argument and issue that I raised here in this thread concerning the BoM.  And if you have already hashed this subject out a million times and it's so dull for you, then way engage?  This reminds me of someone I know who hates chicken, but keeps going to eat at Chick-Fil-A.    

For your metaphor to work I think it is more that you trip over the chihuahua, crack your head in the fall, and wake up in a mental ward thinking you are Napoleon and have just beaten Russia.

[Brant Gardner]

15 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Did the word "adieu" then appear on the seer stone by mistake?  And what about the numerous anachronisms and King James Bible errors (which somehow appear in a translation of an ancient text)? Those are very valid arguments, IMO.  

First, the idea that somehow adieu is an anachronism is probably the absolute worst criticism of the Book of Mormon ever proffered. It tells us much more about the lack of historical understanding of the person making the argument than it does about the translation process. If adieu, borrowed from French, is anachronistic, then why not any other word similarly borrowed from French--such as any word ending in -tion (nation, for example). Should we say that the Book of Mormon contains an anachronism because it contains the word nation? Do we forget that the court language of England was French while England was ruled by the Normans? French is inextricably intertwinded in our English. As for the specific word English, it is used in the borrowed form both in Joseph's day and now. It is not unintelligible if one were to use it today (though I suspect Adios has overtaken it as the preferred borrowed term).

The rest of the question has to do with what one supposes the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon to have been. Both sentences come from an underlying assumption that the translation was God-dictated (or God-displayed on the seer stone) and that it should therefore be perfect. That is an assumption that comes from the more Evangelical branch of thought, though even that has had to be modified for the Bible because it can be easily demonstrated that it is not correct. That does not say that the Bible has no value, only that the assumption of inerrancy was wrong.

In this case, the examples say nothing about the Book of Mormon, only that the assumptions behind using those examples come from a flawed and demonstrably incorrect perspective.

[Kevin Christensen]

13 hours ago, Palerider said:

From the Angel Moroni:

"These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear."

Don't go trying to improve on God now...

The only valid translation is the original. Any changes made after the original, fall under the clause of "Steadying the Ark".

😎

 

If only Joseph Smith agreed with this concept of "only valid" or that the people that God selects to do his work here are going to be perfect.

Quote

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, ... (D&C 128:18)

The easiest way to make imperfection or even change anomalous to expectation, and therefore, decisive, is to insist on absolute, static, unchanging perfection, all the while assuming without question that the interrogator is infallibly capable of identifying final and decisive imperfection on sight.

However, the Book of Mormon in a couple of places famously admits to the possibility of human error, and in D&C 1, the Lord formally and officially sets out a different set of expectations.

Quote

Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, ...

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

With a different set of expectations, we can reasonably come to a different conclusion.

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Brigham Young famously insisted on the imperfection of any and all revelation.  Joseph Smith has no problems with going back and editing and improving the Book of Mormon and the D&C.  What we expect, what we demand, makes a huge difference in how we interpret what we encounter.  See  and Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 64 and Betty Edwards,  in Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.

Quote

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.

If the question is perfection as the definitive quality to seek and expect in inspiration, then imperfection, and only imperfection, provides the decisive and relevant information.  If the question for inspiration is that it is Real, then, we have to take a broader approach that includes self-reflection, a willingness to question our own assumptions, a willingness to first remove the beams in our own eye, that we may see clearly.  If I see something I did not expect, if my interest is in understanding what is real, finding whether things are so, rather than just "seeking to make a man an offender for a word", before concluding, I should seriously ask, "What should I expect."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[strappinglad]

I vaguely remember a comparison between the Isaiah writings from the BoM , the KJV and the Dead Sea Scrolls . IIRC sometimes the BoM Isaiah was a match for the KJV, sometimes it was different and sometimes it was closer to the DDS version. Am I remembering correctly or out to lunch?

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

First, the idea that somehow adieu is an anachronism is probably the absolute worst criticism of the Book of Mormon ever proffered. It tells us much more about the lack of historical understanding of the person making the argument than it does about the translation process. If adieu, borrowed from French, is anachronistic, then why not any other word similarly borrowed from French--such as any word ending in -tion (nation, for example). Should we say that the Book of Mormon contains an anachronism because it contains the word nation? Do we forget that the court language of England was French while England was ruled by the Normans? French is inextricably intertwinded in our English. As for the specific word English, it is used in the borrowed form both in Joseph's day and now. It is not unintelligible if one were to use it today (though I suspect Adios has overtaken it as the preferred borrowed term).

The rest of the question has to do with what one supposes the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon to have been. Both sentences come from an underlying assumption that the translation was God-dictated (or God-displayed on the seer stone) and that it should therefore be perfect. That is an assumption that comes from the more Evangelical branch of thought, though even that has had to be modified for the Bible because it can be easily demonstrated that it is not correct. That does not say that the Bible has no value, only that the assumption of inerrancy was wrong.

In this case, the examples say nothing about the Book of Mormon, only that the assumptions behind using those examples come from a flawed and demonstrably incorrect perspective.

If the translation of an ancient record was God-dictated, then why are King James Bible errors still in the Book of Mormon?  This, IMO, points to the King James Bible as the source document used during the translation process, and not an ancient text.  From your point of view, this means that a God-dictated translation either allowed these King James Bible errors to appear on the seer stone, or they were somehow channeled to Joseph Smith, but either way, I think they shouldn't appear in a translation of an ancient text; I think there is no way around that...and it is a very reasonable concern.  

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

For your metaphor to work I think it is more that you trip over the chihuahua, crack your head in the fall, and wake up in a mental ward thinking you are Napoleon and have just beaten Russia.

Keep barking little doggie...maybe your master will throw you a bone if you behave.  

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have here misled the reader by quoting a question on the FAIRMORMON site which is answered in extenso.  You leave the explanation out. As with your false statement on adieu, you have misled the reader into thinking it is in some sense out of place.  On each claim, you are wrong.

I mislead by quoting FAIR?  This is their own response to this valid question, which, IMO, does not answer anything at all as to why King James Bible errors are in a translation of an ancient text.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

If the translation of an ancient record was God-dictated, then why are King James Bible errors still in the Book of Mormon?  This, IMO, points to the King James Bible as the source document used during the translation process, and not an ancient text.  From your point of view, this means that a God-dictated translation either allowed these King James Bible errors to appear on the seer stone, or they were somehow channeled to Joseph Smith, but either way, I think they shouldn't appear in a translation of an ancient text; I think there is no way around that...and it is a very reasonable concern.  

Oh my gosh!

That is answered in Grant's post very clearly.

Read the second paragraph of his post until you understand it.  Unbelievable- literally!!   How could one believe you if you cannot even read an answer when it is right in front of your nose??

Which of course makes your "reasonable concern" total rubbish.  Wake up and think!

In that post Brant said:

Quote

The rest of the question has to do with what one supposes the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon to have been. Both sentences come from an underlying assumption that the translation was God-dictated (or God-displayed on the seer stone) and that it should therefore be perfect. That is an assumption that comes from the more Evangelical branch of thought, though even that has had to be modified for the Bible because it can be easily demonstrated that it is not correct. That does not say that the Bible has no value, only that the assumption of inerrancy was wrong.

"Reprove betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost"!  

There are times to be academically polite and then there are times like these..... 

Get the money (message) changers out of the temple!!

Edited November 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh!

That is answered in Grant's post very clearly.

Read the second paragraph of his post until you understand it.  Unbelievable- literally!!   How could one believe you if you cannot even read an answer when it is right in front of your nose??

Yep....

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Keep barking little doggie...maybe your master will throw you a bone if you behave.  

C’mon, put some effort into your insults. This is just sad.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh!

That is answered in Grant's post very clearly.

Read the second paragraph of his post until you understand it.  Unbelievable- literally!!   How could one believe you if you cannot even read an answer when it is right in front of your nose??

Which of course makes your "reasonable concern" total rubbish.  Wake up and think!

In that post Brant said:

"Reprove betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost"!  

There are times to be academically polite and then there are times like these..... 

Get the money (message) changers out of the temple!!

That doesn't answer the concern.

As I understand @Ouagadougou he's saying that there are modern day KJV translation errors that made it into the dictated Book of Mormon.  Historical accounts tell us that the Book of Mormon was dictated from words that appeared on a seer stone.  So, did the modern (circa 1700's) KJV translation errors appear on the seer stone or did Joseph take a break from the seer stone to read from the Bible for the Book of Mormon dictation?

(Note:  I am not making an assumption of Biblical inerrancy, just wondering how those errors would have appeared on the seer stone.)