Bernard Gui Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) 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..... 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. Giving up on adieu, are you? A wise move. Edited November 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Brant Gardner Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 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? Let me begin with this sentence first. You have misread what I wrote. I said that the interpretive error you were making was based on the concept of a God-dictated text. To be clear, I believe that it was God-inspired, but placed in human language through a human instrument. I would make the same argument for any inspired book in the Bible. Since the first clause of your sentence is based on a faulty assumption, the conclusion is necessarily tainted by the faulty beginning. However, it does want an answer, and the answer is that those sections were not translated fresh from any particular source but rather obviously used the KJV with some interesting modifications that can be examined, but don't alter the essential issue that they were taken from the KJV without concern for original texts from the Bible. Quote This, IMO, points to the King James Bible as the source document used during the translation process, and not an ancient text. This is only partially correct. The KJV was clearly used for some of the text, although how it got there is still a question being discussed. The salient facts are two: it is there and there was no Bible from which they were copied during the translation process. The part of your statement that is incorrect is that the KJV was responsible for the whole of the Book of Mormon. That is demonstrably incorrect. Nevertheless, the KJV influenced the translation language even in places where it was not copied. Nicholas Frederick has done quite a bit of work on the intertextual connections between the KJV and the Book of Mormon. Quote 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. Let me begin with the conclusion. Is this a reasonable concern? Only if you have the original assumption that there was no human process involved in the translation. Only in that case would it be an issue. Since that is not a reasonable beginning hypothesis, it cannot lead to what you suggest is a reasonable conclusion. Now, the rest of what you are suggesting is part of the question of the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There has been a lot of work written on that topic, and I see no indication that you are familiar with any of it. Since you don't understand those issues, providing a simple response to an overly simplistic statement isn't useful. 3
rockpond Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: Let me begin with this sentence first. You have misread what I wrote. I said that the interpretive error you were making was based on the concept of a God-dictated text. To be clear, I believe that it was God-inspired, but placed in human language through a human instrument. I would make the same argument for any inspired book in the Bible. Since the first clause of your sentence is based on a faulty assumption, the conclusion is necessarily tainted by the faulty beginning. However, it does want an answer, and the answer is that those sections were not translated fresh from any particular source but rather obviously used the KJV with some interesting modifications that can be examined, but don't alter the essential issue that they were taken from the KJV without concern for original texts from the Bible. This is only partially correct. The KJV was clearly used for some of the text, although how it got there is still a question being discussed. The salient facts are two: it is there and there was no Bible from which they were copied during the translation process. The part of your statement that is incorrect is that the KJV was responsible for the whole of the Book of Mormon. That is demonstrably incorrect. Nevertheless, the KJV influenced the translation language even in places where it was not copied. Nicholas Frederick has done quite a bit of work on the intertextual connections between the KJV and the Book of Mormon. Let me begin with the conclusion. Is this a reasonable concern? Only if you have the original assumption that there was no human process involved in the translation. Only in that case would it be an issue. Since that is not a reasonable beginning hypothesis, it cannot lead to what you suggest is a reasonable conclusion. Now, the rest of what you are suggesting is part of the question of the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There has been a lot of work written on that topic, and I see no indication that you are familiar with any of it. Since you don't understand those issues, providing a simple response to an overly simplistic statement isn't useful. Sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary complexity being added to a simple question. Do you believe that Joseph was reading from the seer stone when he dictated Book of Mormon sections that are similar to the KJV Bible? If not, do you believe he was reading from a KJV Bible and adding his own inspiration/revelation to make certain changes? Or, some third method?
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, rockpond said: 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.) Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, IMO. And I agree that it doesn't answer the concern at all...
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Giving up on adieu, are you? A wise move. No, it's only in the BoM one time, so it's not a huge deal...but other anachronisms, such as "horse," is used 14 different times...and this is just one example.
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: Let me begin with this sentence first. You have misread what I wrote. I said that the interpretive error you were making was based on the concept of a God-dictated text. To be clear, I believe that it was God-inspired, but placed in human language through a human instrument. I would make the same argument for any inspired book in the Bible. Since the first clause of your sentence is based on a faulty assumption, the conclusion is necessarily tainted by the faulty beginning. However, it does want an answer, and the answer is that those sections were not translated fresh from any particular source but rather obviously used the KJV with some interesting modifications that can be examined, but don't alter the essential issue that they were taken from the KJV without concern for original texts from the Bible. This is only partially correct. The KJV was clearly used for some of the text, although how it got there is still a question being discussed. The salient facts are two: it is there and there was no Bible from which they were copied during the translation process. The part of your statement that is incorrect is that the KJV was responsible for the whole of the Book of Mormon. That is demonstrably incorrect. Nevertheless, the KJV influenced the translation language even in places where it was not copied. Nicholas Frederick has done quite a bit of work on the intertextual connections between the KJV and the Book of Mormon. Let me begin with the conclusion. Is this a reasonable concern? Only if you have the original assumption that there was no human process involved in the translation. Only in that case would it be an issue. Since that is not a reasonable beginning hypothesis, it cannot lead to what you suggest is a reasonable conclusion. Now, the rest of what you are suggesting is part of the question of the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There has been a lot of work written on that topic, and I see no indication that you are familiar with any of it. Since you don't understand those issues, providing a simple response to an overly simplistic statement isn't useful. Yes, I think this is a very reasonable concern, especially if you want to claim that the BoM was translated from an ancient record, which should not contain King James Bible errors that would only appear over a thousand years later.
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 6 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!! You should't get so upset, but I think it is still a VERY valid concern and he didn't really answer anything, IMO.
champatsch Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 @Ouagadougou, why don't you set forth here a list of King James errors? The lists I've seen exaggerate the number of errors. 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, rockpond said: Sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary complexity being added to a simple question. Do you believe that Joseph was reading from the seer stone when he dictated Book of Mormon sections that are similar to the KJV Bible? If not, do you believe he was reading from a KJV Bible and adding his own inspiration/revelation to make certain changes? Or, some third method? I agree - it is a very simple question and still no answer, IMO. Even FAIR can't explain why such King James Bible errors are in the BoM.
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: No, it's only in the BoM one time, so it's not a huge deal...but other anachronisms, such as "horse," is used 14 different times...and this is just one example. So you back off on that and double down on a new one. If that gets addressed you will drop it and appeal to something else. What is it like being a walking cliche? 1
champatsch Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 I suppose the point you're trying to make, @Ouagadougou, is that Joseph Smith was the author because there are King James errors in the Book of Mormon. Well, there is much more stronger textual evidence that he was not the author which overrides any evidence from a few King James errors.
Gray Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: No, it's only in the BoM one time, so it's not a huge deal...but other anachronisms, such as "horse," is used 14 different times...and this is just one example. Adieu is no more anachronistic than "goodbye" in English. This is the world's dumbest criticism. 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 18 minutes ago, champatsch said: @Ouagadougou, why don't you set forth here a list of King James errors? The lists I've seen exaggerate the number of errors. Here is the most popular list, IMO. https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/ 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: So you back off on that and double down on a new one. If that gets addressed you will drop it and appeal to something else. What is it like being a walking cliche? No, it's just one of MANY issues with the BoM, IMO.
champatsch Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Here is the most popular list, IMO. https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/ No, it's just one of MANY issues with the BoM, IMO. I've gone through this list and much less than half of these are in any way legitimate errors. Let me try to find what I wrote up on it.
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: No, it's just one of MANY issues with the BoM, IMO. You insist on being nonspecific and trying to win using the old argumentum ad Infinitum trick and when you do get specific you seem to lose. This approach is admittedly probably your best bet. Arguing specifics requires actual knowledge.
Ryan Dahle Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Yes, I think this is a very reasonable concern, especially if you want to claim that the BoM was translated from an ancient record, which should not contain King James Bible errors that would only appear over a thousand years later. I guess the real concern is why you feel so sure that an inspired/revealed English text should contain no KJV "errors" in the first place. Latter-day Saints believe in a God that provides some evidence for his revealed truths and gospel, but who doesn't want to make the case too logically compelling. Imagine if Joseph Smith produced an English text that in most ways agreed with the most likely variants from the earliest Bible manuscripts--variants that for the more part wouldn't be discovered and carefully analyzed for many years after his death. That would be a pretty strong evidence for his prophetic gifts--probably too strong. So in my view God was perfectly fine with allowing the Book of Mormon to be intertextually linked with imperfect biblical variants. He had a very logical reason to do so, and in most cases the discrepancies don't have any bearing whatsoever on essential doctrines and principles. Its a lot like a parent that doesn't correct their child's bad grammar at every turn. Instead, they assume that over time the child will discover the errors in their mode of expression and adapt accordingly on their own. For the mean time, it is good enough. Edited November 30, 2018 by Ryan Dahle 1
Brant Gardner Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 6 hours ago, rockpond said: Sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary complexity being added to a simple question. Sounds to me like you didn't actually read what I wrote. As for "a simple question," it really isn't all that simple. There are quite a few discussions and books that are written attempting to analyze the available evidence and answer the question about the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. With that much work done, it is certainly not a simple question, and it is clear that you are unaware of it. Quote Do you believe that Joseph was reading from the seer stone when he dictated Book of Mormon sections that are similar to the KJV Bible? Yes. Simple, right? Now the question is how did that text get there and why does it have the changes that it does? The answer to that is not simple at all. Quote If not, do you believe he was reading from a KJV Bible and adding his own inspiration/revelation to make certain changes? Or, some third method? There is no evidence that any bible was present during the translation. Now, if you are asking how it was done, return to my suggestion that there is an abundance of literature that you would need to handle before you can seriously ask that question. 2
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted November 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 30, 2018 6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Yes, I think this is a very reasonable concern, especially if you want to claim that the BoM was translated from an ancient record, which should not contain King James Bible errors that would only appear over a thousand years later. Let me see if I understand your statement. Because you think you see evidence that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated the way you think it should have been (though you don't believe it was translated at all), then the Book of Mormon couldn't be a translation because it is different from what you think it should have been. Can't you see why I don't see that as a reasonable concern or question? If you have so little information about the translation of the Book of Mormon, why does your assumption trump all of the research that has been done on the topic, none of which suggests your assumptions are correct? I saw in another post that one of your sources is the CES Letter. That is good for finding simplistic objections, but it is hardly a summary of any scholarly work that has been done. Perhaps you might tell us what background reading you have done on translation in general, and then specifically on the Book of Mormon. I note that Champatsch is also responding to you. Have you read anything he has written? 5
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 11 hours ago, rockpond said: 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? Yes, as I explain in that article.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: 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. You merely quoted a question asked by FAIR. You didn't bother to provide the extensive answer they gave, thus completely misleading the reader. The question is a legitimate one, and it has a reasonable answer, which one hopes each reader considered. Same applies to the English word adieu, which you falsely claimed was out of place. 3
Popular Post smac97 Posted November 30, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 30, 2018 7 hours ago, rockpond said: Sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary complexity being added to a simple question. I get this sort of claim all the time from pro se plaintiffs (that is, they are representing themselves) in litigation against banks and loan servicers. These lawsuits pertain to long-term (usually 30-year) residential loans which are heavily regulated through a host of federal and state laws, and which are based on a promissory note and a long (10-20 page) contract (a trust deed) that is chockablock full of complex legal terms, which terms are in turn subject to huge amounts of judicial interpretation under statutory and common law schemes. So along comes a pro se plaintiff who is facing a foreclosure, who reads some stuff online, gets his dander up, and decides to sue the bank. Well, that's fine. But then the bank turns to a law firm with expertise in consumer finance litigation, and that law firm in turn puts its attorneys to work in evaluating the factual and legal issues pertaining to the loan and the foreclosure process. Those attorneys then present motions and other documents to the court and the pro se plaintiff that explains the bank's legal position, which position will be based on the contractual terms, various federal and state statutes, common law doctrines, legal precedent, and so on. The pro se plaintiff receives these documents, and while no doubt a generally intelligent and reasonable person, is simply not equipped with the appropriate training and experience and expertise to meaningfully interact with the arguments and reasoning and evidence set forth in the documents. And not being willing or able to put in the requisite time and effort to master the substantial complexities inherent in consumer finance litigation, his response will usually be some variation of "Sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary complexity being added to a simple question." As you might imagine, this seldom goes over well in Court. A pro se plaintiff with no training or experience in the relevant fields is not really in a position to tell the judge and the attorneys (who usually have many years of extensive training and experience in the relevant fields of inquiry) that they (the attorneys and the judge) are simply resorting to "unnecessary complexity." That's just not so. Consumer finance transactions, such as a home loan for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, are necessarily complex. So it is, I think, with the situation facing all of us regarding the text of The Book of Mormon. "Joseph Smith made it up and/or plagiarized it!" just won't do. Brant has noted "scholarly work that has been done" on this subject. The way you are framing your questions suggests that you have not meaningfully interacted with such work. To coin a phrase, to me this sounds like a lot of unnecessary simplicity being added to a complex question. Thanks, -Smac 6
JAHS Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 Mormon 9:32 "And now behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 9:33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in the Hebrew, behold, ye would have had none imperfection in our record. 9:34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof." With all the alterations they made and with no one else knowing their language, I am not sure how a "rosetta stone" for reformed egyptian could even be identified as being such. And it sounds like there is only really one way to interpret the writings that was prepared by God. So they might get some of it right but without revelation and the interpreters I don't see how it could be an accurate translation.
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: Let me see if I understand your statement. Because you think you see evidence that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated the way you think it should have been (though you don't believe it was translated at all), then the Book of Mormon couldn't be a translation because it is different from what you think it should have been. Can't you see why I don't see that as a reasonable concern or question? If you have so little information about the translation of the Book of Mormon, why does your assumption trump all of the research that has been done on the topic, none of which suggests your assumptions are correct? I saw in another post that one of your sources is the CES Letter. That is good for finding simplistic objections, but it is hardly a summary of any scholarly work that has been done. Perhaps you might tell us what background reading you have done on translation in general, and then specifically on the Book of Mormon. I note that Champatsch is also responding to you. Have you read anything he has written? Still haven't read anything he has written so far, but I will. The Book of Mormon, as you claim, was translated from an ancient text, correct? You also believe that JS used the seer stone to translate from this ancient text, correct? If that is the case, I think it is more than reasonable to expect such a "divine" translation to NOT contain errors unique to the 1769 King James Bible, especially since the Book of Mormon text was supposedly written (from ~600 B.C. to 400 A.D.) well over 1,300 years prior to any of these errors. IMO, this is only further evidence that the King James Bible was a major source of the translation. You still haven't provided any explanation in terms of how or why these errors appear in the Book of Mormon; rather, you just view them as acceptable or reasonable and ask about my background reading on translation. In reading what FAIR has provided on this issue, I dont think they provide a valid explanation as well. So, how did errors unique to the King 1769 King James Bible appear on the seer stone (or were somehow channeled to JS), if it was a "translation" of an ancient text written in Reformed Egyptian (from ~600 B.C. to ~ 400 A.D.)?
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: You merely quoted a question asked by FAIR. You didn't bother to provide the extensive answer they gave, thus completely misleading the reader. The question is a legitimate one, and it has a reasonable answer, which one hopes each reader considered. Same applies to the English word adieu, which you falsely claimed was out of place. So quoting FAIR is misleading? I provided the entire reference, so each reader can click on the link I provided. I can quote the entire portion if you like, but the reoccurring theme with regard to this question is on FAIR, IMO, is: "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." Even FAIR can't provide a reasonable answer, IMO.
Ouagadougou Posted November 30, 2018 Posted November 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I guess the real concern is why you feel so sure that an inspired/revealed English text should contain no KJV "errors" in the first place. Latter-day Saints believe in a God that provides some evidence for his revealed truths and gospel, but who doesn't want to make the case too logically compelling. Imagine if Joseph Smith produced an English text that in most ways agreed with the most likely variants from the earliest Bible manuscripts--variants that for the more part wouldn't be discovered and carefully analyzed for many years after his death. That would be a pretty strong evidence for his prophetic gifts--probably too strong. So in my view God was perfectly fine with allowing the Book of Mormon to be intertextually linked with imperfect biblical variants. He had a very logical reason to do so, and in most cases the discrepancies don't have any bearing whatsoever on essential doctrines and principles. Its a lot like a parent that doesn't correct their child's bad grammar at every turn. Instead, they assume that over time the child will discover the errors in their mode of expression and adapt accordingly on their own. For the mean time, it is good enough. A translation of an ancient text that ended ~400 A.D., IMO, should NOT contain errors unique to the 1769 King James Bible.
Recommended Posts