Are you tight or loose - translatory speaking?

[_Tobin]

As an opening post on this forum, my answer if posed that question is 'yes'. I know, the answer I've suggested is meaningless. I think the question is just as meaningless.

My feeling about the Book of Mormon comes from my background as a former ex-mormon and athiest. The challenge of the Book of Mormon is it is a 19th century fairy-tale of book about God interacting with man in a form trying to ape the old english style of the KJV of the Bible. It would seem to any dispassionate person reading it (if they can finish it?) to be a pure work of fiction generated in that era. So given that understanding, the question is clearly meaningless.

Now, let me throw in the context in which the Book of Mormon could make any sense (given the host of problems it has). It is also the context I confront the Book of Mormon and how I understand it, even though I am highly uncomfortable with it and view the book as a highly flawed work. The context is this: the book is a challenge to the reader to actually engage with God and set up a dialog with that being instead. That seems to be the book's focus (fiction or not) and it lives and dies on the premise that along the road the reader will experience God in a very real way. Without that, I'm afraid the Book of Mormon, Joe Smith, and the whole Mormon religion falls flat as a hoax and fraud.

I believe as Mormons, they should focus purely on this interaction and forget about defending the Book of Mormon and Joe Smith. If they believe the Book of Mormon led them to God, then be convicted believers in God and look to perfecting that belief because I'm sorry - you aren't going to find much perfection in the former two. They should not fear changing the Book of Mormon to update the language and make it easier to invite people to have that experience (since we definitely don't use old english any longer) and they should be less concerned what science says about either the book or its author. After all, if God is real, does what science or critics say really matter?

[_Themis]

Themis, I seem to have misread some of your earlier comments.

On the issue of translation, word-for-word or idea-for-idea, those notions are simply an easy to understand way of saying "Formal Equivalence" and "Dynamic Equivalence" in translation. You can read a bit about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_an ... quivalence

My question on this point has nothing to do with an apologetic argument (as you seem to suggest). This is not about the apologetics, its about assumptions on how God would translate - an issue that you seem to have completely avoided by attacking (again) the notion of apologetics.

So perhaps you could answer the question - does God translate more with a formal equivalence or more with a dynamic equivalence.

I think God was not a part of the process. I think Joseph and others made it up. I think the evidence more then supports this with the Book of Mormon, and especially if we look at it as a whole like the Book of Abraham, etc. The witnesses suggest Joseph was getting it word for word, which makes the most sense from a believing perspective. It makes more logical sense to give a dynamic translation to get the story right(formal being more like Google translator :)), but then is the large sections of Book of Mormon text that are word for word from the KJV dynamic, formal, or just plagiarizing?

I am not sure you even understand the process. I prefer semantic extension or semantic expansion to the term loan shifting. A useful definition reads: "Loan shifting describes the process through which a word undergoes semantic extension on the model of a foreign counterpart." The problem is, there is no foreign language here. There is only semantic extension. So to call it loan shifting creates something of a misnomer of what is happening. So while you talk about the "river horse" - where we see lexical shifts based on a foreign language, this isn't what is being discussed for the Book of Mormon.

Well with the Book of Mormon we have nothing except apologetic invention. This is one of the main reasons it is unlikely.

Sure. Let's start with Nephi.

1 Nephi 6:4 "For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved."
1 Nephi 9:5 "Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not."

That seems pretty clear doesn't it? I could produce other references that lead to the same separation. Now from Mormon -

Words of Mormon 3-5 "... after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, ... Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people."

3 Nephi 5:16 "Therefore I do make my record from the accounts which have been given by those who were before me, until the commencement of my day;"

Moroni 1:1,4 "Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished ... Wherefore, I write a few more things, contrary to that which I had supposed; for I had supposed not to have written any more; but I write a few more things, that perhaps they may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day, according to the will of the Lord."

Enough?

None of it disagrees with what I said, but I knew that, which is why I gave a CFR. God is part of the authorship, since they are supposed to be inspired in much of what they say as coming from God. Who came up with the idea of writing it down and then hiding it in a certain location. You can't really divorce God from being one of the authors here.

[_Themis]

The context is this: the book is a challenge to the reader to actually engage with God and set up a dialog with that being instead. That seems to be the book's focus (fiction or not) and it lives and dies on the premise that along the road the reader will experience God in a very real way.

How do you know you are experiencing God, and not something you created internally?

[_Tobin]

How do you know you are experiencing God, and not something you created internally?

How do you know when you are interacting with me that I'm real and not created internally? I believe you need to actually have a reasonable and substantive discussion with some being outside of yourself that you can be very certain of. After all, Joe Smith claims that he saw God and angels. I know many Mormons point to feelings as proof that the Book of Mormon and God is real. This is certainly not the bar the their prophet set. His claim is any man can pray and speak with God (and the book he generated claims the same thing). I also find that feelings are highly subjective and dependent on factors such as what I may of recently had for breakfast. If you feel the Book of Mormon is true, then I see nothing wrong with pursuing it to its logical conclusion which is actually seeing God. I'm afraid without that, you run the risk of being deluded by a hoax.

[_Drifting]

How do you know you are experiencing God, and not something you created internally?

How do you know when you are interacting with me that I'm real and not created internally? I believe you need to actually have a reasonable and substantive discussion with some being outside of yourself that you can be very certain of. After all, Joe Smith claims that he saw God and angels. I know many Mormons point to feelings as proof that the Book of Mormon and God is real. This is certainly not the bar the their prophet set. His claim is any man can pray and speak with God (and the book he generated claims the same thing). I also find that feelings are highly subjective and dependent on factors such as what I may of recently had for breakfast. If you feel the Book of Mormon is true, then I see nothing wrong with pursuing it to its logical conclusion which is actually seeing God. I'm afraid without that, you run the risk of being deluded by a hoax.

I saw a God once, turns out I was dyslexic....

[_Themis]

How do you know when you are interacting with me that I'm real and not created internally? I believe you need to actually have a reasonable and substantive discussion with some being outside of yourself that you can be very certain of.

I don't know in any absolute way, but I have more then enough experience to be comfortable saying I know.

After all, Joe Smith claims that he saw God and angels.

Joseph made a lot of claims, many of which are easy to see are incorrect.

I know many Mormons point to feelings as proof that the Book of Mormon and God is real. This is certainly not the bar the their prophet set.

LOL No, but then the evidence suggest Joseph was making it up, which means the bar really is not high.

If you feel the Book of Mormon is true, then I see nothing wrong with pursuing it to its logical conclusion which is actually seeing God. I'm afraid without that, you run the risk of being deluded by a hoax.

Many have to disappointing results, and you are right that many are being deluded by hoax's.

[_Tarski]

neither loose or tight..... It's BOTH depending on the context.

Right. it depends on whether we are talking about morals or anatomy.

[_Drifting]

My question on this point has nothing to do with an apologetic argument (as you seem to suggest). This is not about the apologetics, its about assumptions on how God would translate - an issue that you seem to have completely avoided by attacking (again) the notion of apologetics.

So perhaps you could answer the question - does God translate more with a formal equivalence or more with a dynamic equivalence.

Ben, to simplify (perhaps over simplify, which I am prone to do):

1. God gave Joseph the exact word for word translation into English of exactly what was etched into the plates.

or

2. God gave Joseph a word for word translation into English of what He wanted him to believe was written on the plates.

or

3. God did both 1 and 2 at various points in the translation.

Do you subscribe to one of these three options?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

Ben, to simplify (perhaps over simplify, which I am prone to do):

You didn't simplify. In fact, you didn't answer the question at all, and so I am going to repeat it a little differently. Let's start by forgetting completely about Joseph Smith and the Gold Plates for just a moment. They aren't terribly relevant to the question I asked. God is going to translate a text from one human language into another. Do you see God as more of a formal equivalence kind of translator, or as more of a dynamic equivalence kind of translator?

Now you might ask, what is the relevance to this question. Part of the issue here is that, of course, most of the critics here don't believe that God assisted in the translation of the Gold Plates in any sense. However, if you don't believe God assisted, then the argument kind of stops there. You can't really extend it to say that well if God really did assist in translation then element X wouldn't be there without also explaining your assumptions about God that lead you to conclude this.

At the same time, I want to reiterate my request to you (that you haven't answered):

Beyond telling me that you don't believe that God helped translate the Book of Mormon, I really don't know much about your assumptions Drifting, and it would be helpful to have you provide some of them to expedite some of our discussions. Are you religious at all? Is there a religious tradition you follow that I can start from?

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Drifting writes:

Ben, to simplify (perhaps over simplify, which I am prone to do):

You didn't simplify. In fact, you didn't answer the question at all, and so I am going to repeat it a little differently. Let's start by forgetting completely about Joseph Smith and the Gold Plates for just a moment.

Let's not, because after all, they are what the thread is about.

They aren't terribly relevant to the question I asked. God is going to translate a text from one human language into another. Do you see God as more of a formal equivalence kind of translator, or as more of a dynamic equivalence kind of translator?

I don't personally believe God was involved at all.

Now you might ask, what is the relevance to this question. Part of the issue here is that, of course, most of the critics here don't believe that God assisted in the translation of the Gold Plates in any sense. However, if you don't believe God assisted, then the argument kind of stops there. You can't really extend it to say that well if God really did assist in translation then element X wouldn't be there without also explaining your assumptions about God that lead you to conclude this.

At the same time, I want to reiterate my request to you (that you haven't answered):

Beyond telling me that you don't believe that God helped translate the Book of Mormon, I really don't know much about your assumptions Drifting, and it would be helpful to have you provide some of them to expedite some of our discussions. Are you religious at all? Is there a religious tradition you follow that I can start from?

Ben M.

Work on the assumption that my religious experience has been Mormonism.

Now, which of my three simple statements best fits your view of the translation of the Book of Mormon?