Are you tight or loose - translatory speaking?

[_Themis]

This is a great answer, which should clear up most problems that people have with the church.

Translation loose or tight? Both!

Why am I reminded of this:

New Shimmer

I think ldsfaqs is here just for our entertainment.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

In the original transcript and publication a number of scriptures placed the lamb of God as the Father.

I don't think this is an issue that reflects the question of tight or loose translation (unless it favors a tight translation of course).

There are a couple of issues with your argument. I am not going to bother dealing with the argument from a non-believers perspective (there isn't much point in the context of this thread). So, my first point is this - it seems quite clear to me that we have to avoid presentism in conflating a mention of "the Eternal Father" with our present day notion of "God the Father". The KJV Old Testament never uses the phrase "Eternal Father". It does however use something close to it (and in fact, in other translations, like the ASB, we see the phrase "Eternal Father") in one place - Isaiah 9:6, which reads in the KJV: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." This is of course quoted in 2 Nephi 19. (The ASB reads: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

So Isaiah has the Son named the "Eternal Father" or the "Everlasting Father". The Book of Mormon has a similar compound name (which then seems to be used in a liturgical fashion). It really comes out in Mosiah 3:8 (athough I am not sure this is the name expressed in its fullest form - I would have to go back and look at my notes on this issue):

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Personally, I think that there needs to be another coma between Jesus and Christ. But that's just me. The name is provided in various longer and shorter forms, but it follows a general pattern (which is why I argue that it is liturgical in nature). Ok back to the passages you bring up.

Alright so the first thing is this - there isn't any kind of mistake that ought to be made in 1 Nephi 11 in confusing the Son of God with the Father (as you suggest). That we are talking about the Son of God comes out in 1 Nephi 11:6 - 7:

And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired. And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

So we have the son of the most high God. When we get to your first reference, the original was "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh." Now, following the reference in 6-7 (there is an additional reference in chapter 10), I don't think that this could be mistaken as a reference to God the Father. And, seeing that "everlasting God" is a reference in the Old Testament - not to God the Father, but to the Son of God, I also think that it's not really accurate to try and characterize it as a reference to God the Father either.

Having said all of that, the changes in the text by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition (at Kirtland). It has been suggested (and it seems plausible) that the change (which was not applied consistently in the text - just in four places) was a response to criticisms by Alexander Campbell that the Book of Mormon used the language of Catholicism (mother of God) in the Book of Mormon. This criticism was circulated among the LDS community in 1835. The current scholarly view among LDS is that the 1830 reading should be restored.

Finally, from my perspective, the original reading reflects potentially an Israelite view of divinity with a most high God, and then the God of Israel as His Son. In this case we might have something like El and YHWH as one of the sons of El. This would be the case in a reading of Psalm 82 - here are verses 1 and 6 annotated:

God (elohim) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (el); he judgeth among the gods (elohim).
I have said, Ye are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High. (bene elyon)

You can look at my preferred translation here: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsider ... _82_6.html

At any rate, we have God, the son of the Most High. The change seems to be made to deal with a polemical charge. And I don't think this is much of an issue in the question of loose versus tight translation. However, it does seems to me that in making the change, Joseph actually does some damage to the original meaning of the text (and so the recommendation to restore the original wording) if we assume an authentic ancient source - and this would argue for a tight translation more than a loose translation.

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Having said all of that, the changes in the text by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition (at Kirtland). It has been suggested (and it seems plausible) that the change (which was not applied consistently in the text - just in four places) was a response to criticisms by Alexander Campbell that the Book of Mormon used the language of Catholicism (mother of God) in the Book of Mormon. This criticism was circulated among the LDS community in 1835. The current scholarly view among LDS is that the 1830 reading should be restored.

Ben, I think this paragraph hits on the point I am making.

If the translation was 'tight' then the sentences came from God.
Subsequently Gods words have been tampered with - which is If I recall correctly the argument used in establishing the need for the Book of Mormon in the first place I.e. because the Bible had been corrupted in places.

I hadn't heard that there was a desire in scholarly quarters to restore the original text. I suppose in terms of historical accuracy, a restoration of the original text would be agreeable to both tight and loose proponents.

---------------------------------------------

What do you think are the main arguments against it being a 'loose' translation?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

If the translation was 'tight' then the sentences came from God.
Subsequently Gods words have been tampered with - which is If I recall correctly the argument used in establishing the need for the Book of Mormon in the first place I.e. because the Bible had been corrupted in places.

The challenge you face with this is that while you may think this is a natural assumption or conclusion, it isn't necessarily the assumption or conclusion Joseph would have drawn. After all, he had at this point been working on the Book of Abraham, the Inspired translation, and so on. I am not sure he would have had any compulsions against making changes based only on the notion that it came from God. In other words, whether it was loose or tight wouldn't, I suspect, have made any kind of difference in their willingness to make a change like this.

Brigham Young some time later (1868?) made this comment:

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.

This isn't to say that Joseph Smith shared this particular view, but I am using it to point to the fact that the Saints didn't view scripture (even if it came from God) as necessarily fixed or static. And even though they did engage in a polemic against corrupt scripture, I am not sure that they tended to apply it to themselves.

Added to this would be the notion that we assume that they were attempting to deal with a polemical argument relative to the changed text, but weren't attempting to change the meaning. Given these issues, I don't think that we can say that this is evidence at all for a loose process.

I hadn't heard that there was a desire in scholarly quarters to restore the original text. I suppose in terms of historical accuracy, a restoration of the original text would be agreeable to both tight and loose proponents.

Well, I think that there are several places where we will eventually see changes based on text critical studies. However, new editions are a very slow process at this point. I am not sure we are talking about restoring an original text, rather creating the best text based on the information we have.

Ben M.

[_moksha]

I imagine a loose translation would be desirable in that it would give you more wiggle room.

[_Drifting]

Ben, do you think these verses were translated in tight fashion?

Alma 10:5 Nevertheless, after all this, I never have known much of the ways of the Lord, and his mysteries and marvelous power. I said I never had known much of these things; but behold, I mistake, for I have seen much of his mysteries and his marvelous power; yea, even in the preservation of the lives of this people.

Alma 46:40 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate—

Alma 49:2 And behold, the city had been rebuilt, and Moroni had stationed an army by the borders of the city, and they had cast up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and the stones of the Lamanites; for behold, they fought with stones and with arrows.
Alma 49:3 Behold, I said that the city of Ammonihah had been rebuilt. I say unto you, yea, that it was in part rebuilt; and because the Lamanites had destroyed it once because of the iniquity of the people, they supposed that it would again become an easy prey for them.

Alma 50:32 Now behold, the people who were in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that they would hearken to the words of Morianton.

Alma 53:10 And now behold, I have somewhat to say concerning the people of Ammon, who, in the beginning, were Lamanites; but by Ammon and his brethren, or rather by the power and word of God, they had been converted unto the Lord;

Alma 54:5 Behold, Ammoron, I have written unto you somewhat concerning this war which ye have waged against my people, or rather which thy brother hath waged against them

Mosiah 8:17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

Ben, do you think these verses were translated in tight fashion?

Yes. I think you are confusing a couple of issues here. The plates we are told, were on metal, and quite difficult to make. At what point, while creating a sheet of writing does the inscriptionist decide to try and correct an error or to simply throw the sheet back into the fire and start over? There are others I could point to that you have missed like Alma 32:16 ("or rather, in other words")

The Gold Plates were (at least allegedly) a text, just like any other text. The Book of Mormon is also merely a text. If the Book of Mormon is a translation of the Gold Plates in any literal sort of way, then if Mormon/Moroni corrected himself (rather than starting a page over), I would expect to see those corrections in the Book of Mormon - and in this light, I don't think that such statements really side with either a tight or a loose translation model (although perhaps it favors a tighter control, since perhaps Joseph would have made corrections to the text?)

Ben M.

[_Buffalo]

Drifting writes:

Ben, do you think these verses were translated in tight fashion?

Yes. I think you are confusing a couple of issues here. The plates we are told, were on metal, and quite difficult to make. At what point, while creating a sheet of writing does the inscriptionist decide to try and correct an error or to simply throw the sheet back into the fire and start over? There are others I could point to that you have missed like Alma 32:16 ("or rather, in other words")

The Gold Plates were (at least allegedly) a text, just like any other text. The Book of Mormon is also merely a text. If the Book of Mormon is a translation of the Gold Plates in any literal sort of way, then if Mormon/Moroni corrected himself (rather than starting a page over), I would expect to see those corrections in the Book of Mormon - and in this light, I don't think that such statements really side with either a tight or a loose translation model (although perhaps it favors a tighter control, since perhaps Joseph would have made corrections to the text?)

Ben M.

Given the time involved in etching words on metal plates, I have a hard time seeing so many corrections of that sort on metal plates. It sounds more like someone dictating a story verbally, and changing things midsentence when they misspeak or change their mind.

[_J Green]

If the translation was 'tight' then the sentences came from God.
Subsequently Gods words have been tampered with

Drifting,

I'm curious as to why you assume that a 'tight' translation implies that the words are straight from God and not chosen by Joseph. I'd also love to hear Ben's thoughts on this vis-a-vis Joseph as reader.

Regards

[_Benjamin McGuire]

J Green writes:

I'm curious as to why you assume that a 'tight' translation implies that the words are straight from God and not chosen by Joseph. I'd also love to hear Ben's thoughts on this vis-à-vis Joseph as reader.

Simplifying a bit, any time you have a text as a communicative act, you have an author who is writing to an idealized audience. The audience is specific (or at least can be identified by specific features). If Joseph Smith was the intended audience, then he functions as a large part of what determines the language (i.e. the words that are used). Whether or not Joseph is identical with the idealized audience, he probably at least resembles it to some extent (probably more than I do, or anyone else reading this forum).

Ben M.