- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Nephite wrote:
I donât know how serious you were about that, but I just want to say that I see the JST as inspired
How do you feel about the other versions/translations of the bible (like the New World Translation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses)?
– Just as inspired as the Joseph Smith Translation?
– Good but not inspired of God like the JST?
– Wrong?
What do you base your opinion on?
rebeccad wrote: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.
I think the greatest gift they left us was style. Translation is one thing. Creating something quotable and beautiful is another.
Some of the translations try for accuracy, but lose flavour.
Consider the “Scholars’ Version”, which is not deserving of the name.
The Beatitudes are not translated as “blessed are the…” but “congratulations to the…”, which to me sounds like someone who has won one of those prize draws in the mail!
Although the “thou” thing has been misunderstood.
Quote:…you forgot the Joseph Smith translation of the bible, which rewrites passages inconvenient to mormon theology
No, no, I remember it… but it’s not really used by us, and it’s basically KJV with a few changes. The passages in the PoGP and BoM from the Bible are more interesting.
The JST is an “amplified” version, rather than a translation. I suppose the New World Translation is as well.
Forgotten_Charity wrote: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”.
The biases cut both ways. The Jewish translations are interesting, but remember that they are written to suit rabbinical/talmudic perspectives.
As I understand it, “messiah” means the anointed one, i.e. King, which is more or less the same as the Greek “christos”.
As for God…
Elohim is used frequently in the Hebrew. And so are the combinations El … (Lord of …), El Shaddai.
Been gone a few days, just catching up. I had to really laugh at the apple cider and harbor seal references. Thanks for sharing! đ As for me, I’m not a translator or english major. I’m really not a fan of KJV because it’s Olde English, and I just don’t speak that way. It’s archaic, especially in much of the OT (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Amos). I mean it’s just incomprehensible. GIve me ANY other version. I have a Catholic New American Bible. I love it because it gives some background on the books, and also has new books (Deborah, Tobit, Maccaabees) that aren’t in the protestant Bible. It’s an overlooked gem IMO.
I don’t speak that way either. But come to think of it, I don’t speak the way that I write on this board either. In fact some of you would probably have trouble understanding me! Still, I think the written language is always different to the spoken, that’s part of the quality. One can read a great writer like Raymond Carver who attempts to bring the spoken word to the page, but even then it’s slightly different. Talking of the Apocrypha, I have a KJV version at home, and also Bruce Metzger’s version. Both interesting, especially Esdras and the Maccabees.
Nephite wrote:I donât know how serious you were about that, but I just want to say that I see the JST as inspired.
I don’t have any problem with it being inspired and seen as convenient at the same time. I think most church members will agree the WoW revelation will qualify on both those points. The 1978 revelation comes close too, though maybe a little late to be perfectly convenient.
Old-Timer wrote:
A) No, it doesn’t – at least in any way that would be accepted by linguists and historians as a translation. Joseph Smith claimed the book was a translation, but he didn’t even attempt to claim that it was a translation in the classic sense of how that word is used almost universally by others. The most striking example of this is the fact that his dictation method not long into the process wouldn’t be considered “translating” by anyone who saw it. If we really look at how it came to be, it was the result of an on-going “vision”, not a translation. Frankly, I think it only was called a translation because Joseph really believed the words he was seeing were an accurate representation of what was on the plates – and because the idea of a visionary account would have been even easier for the world to dismiss as not really an accurate historical account recorded by ancient prophets.I think it does. The Church has pushed that idea for a long, long time. In fact, because of this most members don’t even know that the entire BOM was “translated” using the seer stone. Only the 116 lost pages were purportedly translated with the Urim and Thummim.
Old-Timer wrote:
Some people talk of it as being “inspired fiction”, but I prefer to think of it as “inspired non-fiction”. I have never experienced that to the extent that I believe Joseph did in this instance, but I have had experiences that I would classify without hesitation as having produced inspired “non-fiction” – particularly in three instances with a Priesthood blessing that lasted MUCH longer and included way more specific detail of the past and future than I possibly could have known on my own. I literally “saw with my mind’s eye” what I should say, and, in each case, what I saw actually did happen or was confirmed to have happened. I have had a couple of similar experiences where I suddenly understood details of someone’s past that they hadn’t shared with me – and I could have written a short story about those details that would have been accurate enough to be classified as non-fiction.So, the book itself simply claims to be a record of an ancient people. Nothing more, nothing less. The book itself makes NO claim about how it would be brought to light, other than that it would be by the power of God. (That is critically important. The book itself does not say exactly how it would be “translated”.) That leaves many, many possibilities open – including a very loose definition of translation that could include exactly what Joseph did, no matter whether or not the actual plates he used (and then didn’t use) contained the record itself.
How do you explain the lack of DNA evidence? I think inspired fiction makes more sense.
Old-Timer wrote:
A) The book itself never makes that claim.I personally believed something similar to the limited geography model LONG before I ever heard that phrase, and I also believe that we have absolutely no idea where it occurred in the Americas. None whatsoever. (I think the research into the Old World location is compelling, but not the New World research.) I also believed that the “principle ancestors” phrase was wrong at a very early age. ( I think the Jaredites might be the principle genealogical ancestors, and that they were Asiatic, so I believe the most recent DNA research actually comes close to validating the Book of Mormon [and I believed the Jaredite connection long before I knew of the DNA controversy] – but that is for another discussion.)
So, just because it isn’t what members assumed it was doesn’t mean it isn’t what it actually claims to be.
I see this as a case of intellectual dishonesty., IT’s not just what “members assumed it was” but rather what “inspired” leaders taught it was. Big difference. The introduction used to stated that they were the “principal ancestors fo the Native Americans” which has since been changed to “among the ancestors of the Native Americans.”
Old-Timer wrote:
Honestly, I have never encountered an actual claim within the pages themselves that I believe is demonstrably false. There are numerous assumptions of people on both sides of the validity debate that I think are incorrect, lame, ludicrous and even frightening – but there’s no actual claim of the book itself that I have found to be indefensible or preposterous. Over the decades I have been reading it, otoh, there are numerous things that have snapped my head back and made me realize I had misunderstood it previously.What I gather then is that somehow the revelation dried up after the standard works were penned. These “assumptions” you speak of came from church leaders who were supposed to be talking to God.
I’m all for finding an explanation that can allow people to believe the contnets of the BOM despite the fact that is is not the historical record it is supposed to be, but you have to be intellectually honest. Help me see your logic as something other than flawed.
As I said before, I see the JST as an “amplified” version, i.e. most of the time, there are extra words in it to clarify certain details. Now and then it makes a major change, but it’s mostly to enhance the meaning or to deal with ambiguity. Where it gets interesting is in its differences from the BoM Biblical passages. And there are some.
I suspect we don’t use it fully since the CoC own the copyright or did.
Hercules, I’ll try to respond in more detail when I have extended time, but please resist rejecting someone else’s view by classifying it as “intellectual dishonesty”. That wording is potent and, in this case, 100% incorrect. There is NOTHING dishonest about anything I wrote, and I’ve come to my views after decades of careful reading, intense study and contemplation. For me, it has been a deeply “intellectual” conclusion, frankly. I respect the view you expressed and even understand completely why you see this as you do. I hope when I have time to write more, you will understand how I came to see this as I do – but be assured there is absoluteluy no intellectual dishonesty involved.
Old-Timer wrote:Hercules, I’ll try to respond in more detail when I have extended time, but please resist rejecting someone else’s view by classifying it as “intellectual dishonesty”. That wording is potent and, in this case, 100% incorrect. There is NOTHING dishonest about anything I wrote, and I’ve come to my views after decades of careful reading, intense study and contemplation. For me, it has been a deeply “intellectual” conclusion, frankly.
I respect the view you expressed and even understand completely why you see this as you do. I hope when I have time to write more, you will understand how I came to see this as I do – but be assured there is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty involved.
My apologies. I meant no disrespect. I guess I sometimes get carried away. I just don’t see how one can characterize what “inspired” leaders have TAUGHT for decades as “assumptions by members.” That was my main issue with what you posted. The only conclusion one could then come to is that the Church leaders receive little to no revelation. I guess this is why no one could get any revelations about Hofmann and simply agreed to pay him off.
Can the book survive all of this? I don’t know. You’re right that the book itself (excluding the title page, introduction, etc.) does not make these claims, which is interesting. However, It’s hard to look past the fact that the Church’s official position for over 150 years has been proven wrong.
Quote:I just don’t see how one can characterize what “inspired” leaders have TAUGHT for decades as “assumptions by members.”
Why? People can’t teach incorrect assumptions? Prophets are infallible? (Btw, when I use the word “members” I don’t exlude any members from that usage. Leaders are members, and, unless I specify otherwise, I mean all members when I say members. If you haven’t been around long enough to realize that, I understand.)
Quote:That was my main issue with what you posted. The only conclusion one could then come to is that the Church leaders receive little to no revelation.
Why? Incorrect assumptions about one thing mean nothing else is correct or revealed? That’s far from the only conclusion one could reach – and I believe there are FAR more logical conclusions that can be reached if we start with the assumption that nobody is infallible and that prophets and apostles are human.
I really wish most things were as black and white as thee sentences above describe, but I’ve come to believe most tihngs are much, much more complicated than that.
Heber13 wrote:Nephite wrote:I donât know how serious you were about that, but I just want to say that I see the JST as inspired
How do you feel about the other versions/translations of the bible (like the New World Translation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses)?
– Just as inspired as the Joseph Smith Translation?
– Good but not inspired of God like the JST?
– Wrong?
What do you base your opinion on?
Sorry for not replying to this much sooner. I don’t know enough to have an opinion about other translations of the bible, except that I think it may be time for the Church to check them out and consider that there may be one better than the KJV. In the example I noted before, several translations corroborate a JST and I thought that was cool. That’s all.Hercules wrote:How do you explain the lack of DNA evidence? I think inspired fiction makes more sense….
Can the book survive all of this?
I have had/have various concerns regarding the Church, but I have not been able to come up with an explanation for the Book of Mormon that is different from what the Church now says it is.
Quote:Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the LamanitesâWritten to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and GentileâWritten by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelationâWritten and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyedâTo come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereofâSealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the GentileâThe interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
The account somehow went from Reformed Egyptian on gold plates to English on paper. Whether by looking through the Urim and Thummim, at a stone in a hat while it is transcribed, or another way, I consider that a veritable translation.I think it is far too complex to be anything but an actual history of real civilizations. Consider:
-It tells of a prophet leaving Jerusalem
-He named a river and a valley after his sons
-Nephi has two sets of plates, the Small and Large
-It quotes from Brass Plates
-The description of Nephiâs vision regarding the land of promise and the downfall of its inhabitants
-The vision of the discovery and colonizing of America and the state of Gentile apostasy
-There are descendants of Nephi, Laman, Zoram, and Ishmael
-Writings from Isaiah that are different from the bible (showing that the writings were really taken from a record other than the more modern bible)
-The prophecy about people saying there cannot be another bible
-The prophecy about Lamanites being converted
-Jacob quotes Zenos relative to the allegory of the tame and wild olive trees (If the BoM is inspired fiction, whatâs the point of Jacob quoting another prophet? Why wouldnât the allegory just be written out without complicating it?)
-The book of Omni – (If the BoM is inspired fiction, whatâs the point of Chemish and Abinadomâs writings?)
-Another group of people is discovered â they came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah
-Mormon cuts in to explain how he has abridged the plates and fills in a gap in the history
-King Benjaminâs speech â (The record tells of the people gathering and sacrificing the firstlings of their flocks and then sitting in families with the doors of their tents facing the temple.)
-Ammon decides to search out people who had left Zarahemla and finds the people of Limhi
-Those people tell of yet another group whose records they had discovered
-The elaborate account of King Noahâs and his wicked priests
-Mention of gold, silver, and ziff
-It is said that Christ will be born âat Jerusalemâ (Joseph Smith definitely knew that He was born in Bethlehem)
-King Lamoni is converted, followed by his father (If the BoM is inspired fiction, why doesnât it just provide inspired teaching without the elaborate stories?)
-The accounts of wars between the Nephites and Lamanites
-The descendants of Zoram are revisited
-Alma quotes Zenos and Zenock rather than teaching on his own
-Houses made of cement
-Details of the sign of Christâs birth
-The resurrected Christ visits the people
-Ammaron hides the sacred records
-Details of more wars and wickedness
-A record of people who came to the land many centuries earlier is inserted
-Moroni explains that he had supposed he was done writing, but then writes more as he wanders
-Two epistles from Mormon are inserted
-Moroni speaks to everyone, saying we shall see him at the bar of God
-All of Mormonâs comments throughout much of the record
-The many, many names of people and places mentioned
-Many other details
The Book of Mormon is thriving and will survive. Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone
reallycompared DNA samples from various parts of Central and South America to different Jews from various locations? Nephite wrote:Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone
reallycompared DNA samples from various parts of Central and South America to different Jews from various locations? Yes
Frankly, I think the DNA issue is very easy to reconcile intellectually, IF the only conclusions are drawn from the actual book itself and not from what members (including leaders) assumed it says. I’ll try to be concise, but here is the way I read the book itself: Three groups are detailed, to some degree, in the book. In order of longevity and size:
1) The Jaredites – This group is described as being large at the beginning of their migration – mulitple familes, perhaps an entire “tribe”. If we assume the standard Old Testament chronology, which I don’t assume to be accurate but can use for this purpose, they left their home probably no later than 3,000 BC – which means they were in the “promised land” for roughly 3,000 years when the other two groups arrived. The Book of Ether is quite clear that it covers ONLY the people who remained at or near the government center – and basic population demographics pretty much guarantee that they would have spread widely across whatever land they inhabited. Thus the total annihilation described at the end of the Book of Ether logically could have been only the people who lived close enough to be gathered, leaving many, many, many people still spread out elsewhere.
In looking at the society described, as a former History Teacher, I would place their origin in the Northeast Asian steppe region, meaning their DNA would be consistent with the current research. Thus, it is very plausible that they would be the “principal ancestors” of the Native American Indians – that the primary DNA still extent 2,000 years later would be Asian.
2) The people of Mulek – This group was relatively small and occupied a very limited area when discovered by the Nephites (group 3). They were “more numerous” than the Nephites – the third and smallest group. Interestingly, both groups combined were FAR smaller than the Lamanites, which only makes sense if the Lamanites had combined with a more numerous, indigenous people – and if that indigenous people were of Asian descent, it would explain perfectly the “apostate” dsignation and dark skin stigma attached by the Nephites to the Lamanites.
The population and distance clues in the book itself are convincing to me of a limited geography model –
and I reached that conclusion on my own and long before I read any modern arguments for them (and long before I read any DNA research showing Asian origins for the Native American peoples). Thus, I see a very limited geography and a relatively small population (just over a couple of million, tops) destroyed, while a much larger population dominated genetically by “Asians” continued to spread for a total of at least 5,000 years. That’s what I see when I read the book itself and focus only on what I think it actually says. That means two things very simple things to me:
1) The latest DNA research doesn’t invalidate the claims of the actual book about origins.
2) The latest research shows that the assumptions of the people who believed in the book for a long time were wrong.
I’m OK with the second conclusion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.