Book of Mormon Translation

[Anonymous]

Also different societies have different thinking from excersizing different parts of thier brain. Here is a literal and true example of one Benjamen Franlin tells in his essay about the book “savages of North America”.

Quote:

A Swedish minister, having assembled the chiefs of the Susquehanah Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them with the principal historical facts on which our religion is founded; such as the fall of our first parents by eating an apple, the coming of Christ to repair the mischief, His miracles and suffering, etc. When he had finished, an Indian orator stood up to thank him. “What you have told us,” he says, “is all very good. It is indeed bad to eat apples. It is better to make them all into cider.

Fastinating what the Susquehanna Idian took from the lesson of genesis. 😆 I laugh at myself sometimes because sometimes I take home a very different lesson reading the BOM then the lesson tells us we should take.

[Anonymous]

I find the book interesting in parts and boring as watching paint dry in others, but for me if it is not what it claims to be, that is an actual translation of an ancient record then what is the point? So why bother to try and make it relevant today when it is obviously a production of a 19th century world view. There is so much other information out there to fill your brain with to continue to reread the BofM over and over seems somewhat an exercise in futility.

Perhaps it is inspired on some level so I think it is worth reading a couple of times and maybe pondering somewhat, but I really just do not know what it is fore sure. But I do know the evidence leads me to believe it is most likely fiction, so I treat it as such until I get evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

I don’t go into details about my background too much, but suffice to say that some of my ancestors were basically living in a warrior type society three or four hundred years ago. I believe that they would have read the BoM very differently from me.

The comment about Nephi and his brothers is interesting, because until recently, it was the oldest brother who took (almost) all. People don’t realize how deep this seniority runs.

Quote:

Fastinating what the Susquehanna Idian took from the lesson of genesis. 😆 I laugh at myself sometimes because sometimes I take home a very different lesson reading the BOM then the lesson tells us we should take.

Check this out as well. I have heard this elsewhere, but it shows how bizarre some of these concepts are to new cultures. Just like the apple business. (It wasn’t an apple of course, but you know what I mean)

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/Greenland-Rising.html?page=all

Quote:

To its natives, Greenland now officially goes by the name Kalaallit Nunaat “the Land of the People.” As a colony, it’s been part of Denmark since 1721, when Lutheran missionary Hans Egede showed up and started saving souls. The first Danes taught the Inuit that Hell was very hot rather than very cold. They taught that communal living shared food, shared hunting trips, shared wives was sinful. They taught that rocks and birds were not endowed with spirits. Greenlanders had no bread or concept of bread, so Egede translated another pillar of Western belief the Lord’s Prayer to fit Greenlandic reality. “Give us this day our daily harbor seal,” they prayed.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I find the book interesting in parts and boring as watching paint dry in others, but for me if it is not what it claims to be, that is an actual translation of an ancient record then what is the point? So why bother to try and make it relevant today when it is obviously a production of a 19th century world view. There is so much other information out there to fill your brain with to continue to reread the BofM over and over seems somewhat an exercise in futility.

It is also a product of the 16th/17th century via the King James translation, the 1st century, via the NT, and the remote past via the OT (four or five thousand years ago perhaps, maybe longer in the Eden and Noah accounts). (That’s before we get into the whole issue of folk in 500 BC, Nephites/Lamanites between 100 BC – 100AD, and the collapse of their civilisation several hundred years later.)

As such, the Book of Mormon has Stuart and Tudor influences, the ghost of Tyndale and Luther in it, the (in)direct influence of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Persians (that’s with or without saying it’s all JS’ product), and the Greek, Latin and Hebrew languages.

Someone once said that we never read the same book twice. We see it slightly differently each time. If it’s a good book, then it gets a few rereads. The BoM, while difficult, still has plenty to chew on. I agree, some parts are easier than others.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I don’t go into details about my background too much, but suffice to say that some of my ancestors were basically living in a warrior type society three or four hundred years ago. I believe that they would have read the BoM very differently from me.

The comment about Nephi and his brothers is interesting, because until recently, it was the oldest brother who took (almost) all. People don’t realize how deep this seniority runs.

Quote:

Fastinating what the Susquehanna Idian took from the lesson of genesis. 😆 I laugh at myself sometimes because sometimes I take home a very different lesson reading the BOM then the lesson tells us we should take.

Check this out as well. I have heard this elsewhere, but it shows how bizarre some of these concepts are to new cultures. Just like the apple business. (It wasn’t an apple of course, but you know what I mean)

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/Greenland-Rising.html?page=all

Quote:

To its natives, Greenland now officially goes by the name Kalaallit Nunaat “the Land of the People.” As a colony, it’s been part of Denmark since 1721, when Lutheran missionary Hans Egede showed up and started saving souls. The first Danes taught the Inuit that Hell was very hot rather than very cold. They taught that communal living shared food, shared hunting trips, shared wives was sinful. They taught that rocks and birds were not endowed with spirits. Greenlanders had no bread or concept of bread, so Egede translated another pillar of Western belief the Lord’s Prayer to fit Greenlandic reality. “Give us this day our daily harbor seal,” they prayed.

See here is the thing(for me). If we are to believe that we’re reading an ancient book about historical Indians then why are we reading it as modern western civilization thinks. the idiana thought/think very differently to this style. I became familer to this first hand among my native American friends and the oldest of thier tribal leaders speaking to them in sweat lodges which I attended with them(the I loved the chanting, I actually got into

It). If indeed we are reading in breaking it down line and paragraph, word by word and word and parsering it. We are reading it very very differently in a way that was never thought of by them and never intended. It makes no sense at all to me to read ancient writings of tribes who thought so differently then any modern western civilization. More over, it makes absolutly zero sense (to me) that a god of ambiguity require exact translation and only one exact meaning to each word or sentence as the only correct way to read it. It gives me major migraines to even comptemplate that. Especailly since ancient Indians neves isn’t think about things the way we are reading them. spend time with many different Indian tribes and you’ll know. What is common among them is a ancient tribal and warrior mentality(at least among the elders). The youth have long lost interest(mostly) and see things very western like now. I found it interesting that our(mine and theirs) was very much alike. Hawks grandfather called me a modern day “grey owl”. I had no idea who he was at the time lol. I just can’t see any type of Indian thinking with the way read it at church.

[Anonymous]

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

See here is the thing(for me). If we are to believe that we’re reading an ancient book about historical Indians then why are we reading it as modern western civilization thinks. the idiana thought/think very differently to this style. I became familer to this first hand among my native American friends and the oldest of thier tribal leaders speaking to them in sweat lodges which I attended with them(the I loved the chanting, I actually got into It). If indeed we are reading in breaking it down line and paragraph, word by word and word and parsering it. We are reading it very very differently in a way that was never thought of by them and never intended. It makes no sense at all to me to read ancient writings of tribes who thought so differently then any modern western civilization. More over, it makes absolutly zero sense (to me) that a god of ambiguity require exact translation and only one exact meaning to each word or sentence as the only correct way to read it…

i agree. it makes little sense. yet, i think its kinda also the point. everyone reads it and see something different yet still of value, and leading them, eventually to the same direction. i think your issue assumes there even is a single intended, exact, meaning. i thought the same for all my life.

it seems though that perhaps it is ambiguous, always has been, always will, and i am trying to come to terms with that new paradigm. which is hard and i am have good days and bad days doing that myself. a big change for me.

i think it was brian in another post that commented how the church is not the moon (perfect christ) but it still points to the moon. i find that analogy most helpful. it may or may not be historical. it is not translated to exactness … but it still will lead anyone who reads and prays and follows toward god, and christ. the paths may start quite differently by culture, but it still heads in the same direction. and the farther on that path we get, those paths of those in different cultures would essentially move toward each other, harmonize?

maybe that. i say that 50% devil’s advocate though. its hard for me to accept as well. basically, although it seems now that it may also be that the lines will never be exactly the same. because if the record is NOT historical or perfect, then in mortality, it will always just be pointing the way to christ, but differently for each of us.

which of course, gets back to the absoluteness thing i am trying so hard to shed. and even though it makes sense on many levels, i still have issues with it. because even that has anachronisms..

its like studying english–every stinking rule has an exception, sometimes several, and the exceptions are riddled with contradictions; and we can’t even settle on the rules to know what there are exceptions to…

and so it goes. ask me every odd numbered day if i can buy it, and the answer is maybe.. the even numbered days its no way. what’s today?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

We are reading it very very differently in a way that was never thought of by them and never intended. It makes no sense at all to me to read ancient writings of tribes who thought so differently then any modern western civilization. More over, it makes absolutly zero sense (to me) that a god of ambiguity require exact translation and only one exact meaning to each word or sentence as the only correct way to read it.

The Jews say that the scriptures have at least three meanings, one for the past, one for the present, and one for the future. I suppose we could add a meaning for the individual, and another for the congregation/nation.

I think there are certain commonalities between us and the ancients, more than we realize. The story of Bathsheba is as relevant as it always was (there was a similar case in China recently), and the story of Peter betraying Jesus is still relevant.

I think we have to try and bear all these things in mind. I see the BoM as being of “old” origin (i.e. pretty much two hundred years old at the very least, with earlier influences – whichever way you look at it.), but some of it is still relevant to me today.

Quote:

Especailly since ancient Indians neves isn’t think about things the way we are reading them. spend time with many different Indian tribes and you’ll know. What is common among them is a ancient tribal and warrior mentality(at least among the elders). The youth have long lost interest(mostly) and see things very western like now. I found it interesting that our(mine and theirs) was very much alike. Hawks grandfather called me a modern day “grey owl”. I had no idea who he was at the time lol. I just can’t see any type of Indian thinking with the way read it at church.

Using generalization here, but there are certain features in common. We’re obviously talking about an unknown/imagined culture here, but I can see a few similarities in the BoM:

* Warrior culture.

* Tribalism.

* Nomadism (which is mentioned more in the BoM than people realize)

* Genealogy and oral history (esp. in Ether.)

[Anonymous]

Oh I think the great thing about reading any book is the ability to make it personal or what applies to you and throw out the rest. I personally can’t read any book where my mind doesn’t automatically filter what is relevant in my life including the BOM. I find it generally easier to read then the NT or OT which is a big plus to me. On the other hand I find no value in reading about the continual testifying of the coming of Christ in the present day. I like actually reading about Christ and his teachings, it’s a shame more of the BOM wasn’t dedicated to that. But because it isn’t I tend to enjoy the NT more. Still it is easier to read which I like. Since we read the KJV of the bible and it is widely considered to be the least accurate translation then I figure we aren’t to concerned with accuracy of translation as with readability and pretty sounding words which is the plus side of the KJV. But as far as the way people thought back then. I think most people would be in for a surprise of what was common thinking before critical thinking even came into the world. Before the age of reason. I’d bet my life the BOM wasn’t written critaclly by Mormon or JS. Reading a uncritaclly written book like it was a college exam drives me nuts. I’m at peace and feel the spirit more if I read it like a journal without trying to dissect everything.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

it is widely considered to be the least accurate translation

No, that’s certainly not true. It may be old fashioned, but it weakness is not in inaccuracy, just in using a smaller range of source material.

However, stylistically, it still has it over many other translations. It as written by people who had some sense of literary English style, whereas some of the modern translations are in rotten English. The King James, much of the time has a beauty to it, which is lacking in, say, the NIV.

A lot of the modern translations have their biases too. The KJV is soft on alcohol, and hard on witches (reflecting King James’ personal interests). The NIV is actually soft on homosexuality, and mistranslates some material to pander to modern mores. (Not saying I necessarily agree with the passages in question, but it is a case of revisionism.) The Douay-Rheims and Jerusalem Bible, being Roman Catholic, translate “adelphoi” as being cousins, so that Jesus doesn’t have any brothers, and thus the Vatican’s doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is retrofitted into the NT.* Philadelphia… city of cousinly love, not quite the same ring though.

Likewise, the New World Translation, by the JWs, rewrites passages such as John 1, that are inconvenient to their theology.

* The immaculate conception was only formally institutionalized in RC theology in the 19th century. Previously, it was traditional, not doctrinal.

[Anonymous]

I spent many many tedious hours in college translating Biblical Hebrew into english.

After tearing apart words and phrases trying to get the right shade of meaning and nuace into english I would go to the KJV to see how they did it.

IMO the KJV translators were masters.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Likewise, the New World Translation, by the JWs, rewrites passages such as John 1, that are inconvenient to their theology.

…you forgot the Joseph Smith translation of the bible, which rewrites passages inconvenient to mormon theology

Sam…great summary!

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Sam. That’s stuff not a lot of people understand.

The KJV has its issues, but I really like it for its imagery and poetry. Sure, it’s like learning a second language for many people, but if it’s read in one’s youth it becomes a native tongue. I think many of the modern translations lose a lot in trying to simplify complex things – especially when that means parabolic, figurative, allegorical, symbolic, ambiguous, etc. phrasing ends up being translated literally.

[Anonymous]

I was referring to individual books broken down. For example I find it more accurate and the college professors I know in the old testiment to read the Jewish English translation of the old testiment then the KJV. Which seems to try to shcew a “coming of Christ”somehow in the old testiment by reading into words like “lord” when lord itself is never written,niether us most high one, or Eternal etc. in the original Hebrew text it was always “YHWH” – is used to represent God’s name. Thus god was the only one ever refered to in the original Hebrew scripts. Thier are other errors and translations I find as well in the KJV as is pointed out to me by people who have studied some of the original scipts. The use of the word messiah was being used to denote in the Hebrew meaning “high preist, king” to denote a coming of a great high priest lecturare that would straighten out and put a end to any debate about god and interpretations of god and the laws with his great intellect and wisedom provening beyond a shadow of doubt the real truths. They never forecasted the coming of a god or son of god or a person bearing any godlike power. Just a “great lecturer”.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

…you forgot the Joseph Smith translation of the bible, which rewrites passages inconvenient to mormon theology

I don’t know how serious you were about that, but I just want to say that I see the JST as inspired.

For one example, Luke 17:20-21 in the KJV reads:

Quote:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The JST reads:

Quote:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God has already come unto you.

I added the emphasis. So why did Brother Joseph make that change? I don’t know, but it was correct to make the change. The other footnote to that verse says “Many translations read ‘among’ because the pronoun ‘you’ is plural here in Greek.” Other translations done after Joseph’s life read “the kingdom of God is among you” or “in the midst of you” or variations of those. See http://bible.cc/luke/17-21.htm.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

…you forgot the Joseph Smith translation of the bible, which rewrites passages inconvenient to mormon theology

I don’t know how serious you were about that, but I just want to say that I see the JST as inspired.

For one example, Luke 17:20-21 in the KJV reads:

Quote:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The JST reads:

Quote:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God has already come unto you.

I added the emphasis. So why did Brother Joseph make that change? I don’t know, but it was correct to make the change. The other footnote to that verse says “Many translations read ‘among’ because the pronoun ‘you’ is plural here in Greek.” Other translations done after Joseph’s life read “the kingdom of God is among you” or “in the midst of you” or variations of those. See http://bible.cc/luke/17-21.htm.

That’s a matter of perspective. I read both and see a slightly different way of saying the exact same thing. That’s how my mind interprets it.

[Author]

Posts