Let's not, because after all, they are what the thread is about.
No, really. Let's.
I don't personally believe God was involved at all.
Right. We have already established this. But, that issue isn't actually material to a number of your comments in this thread. So under the assumption that God could be involved in such a translation, what would you expect that translation to look like, and why would it look like that?
Work on the assumption that my religious experience has been Mormonism.
This doesn't help in the slightest bit. After all, my religious experience has also been Mormonism, and yet we clearly are not in the same place.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:This doesn't help in the slightest bit. After all, my religious experience has also been Mormonism, and yet we clearly are not in the same place.
Ben M.
Well a lot of believing members are not on the same page, but it really is not relevant.
Benjamin McGuire wrote: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?
Come on now Ben, quid pro quo...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
I am going to insist. I think that I have been more than reasonable responding to your questions here in these forums.
Ben M.
Insist all you want. Just because you don't lie my answers does not mean I haven't answered.
All you have to do is pick 1, 2, or 3 or list an alternative. What are you scared of?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Just because you don't lie my answers does not mean I haven't answered.
All you have to do is pick 1, 2, or 3 or list an alternative. What are you scared of?
It isn't about being scared. I asked you a question. You responded to my question with a question - but your question wasn't related to mine - it was changing the discussion. I am attempting to return it to where it was. You answer my question, and then if you want, I will answer yours. It's quite simple. What's more than a little humorous to me is the fact that you seem to be unwilling to answer my question while absolutely insisting (and suggesting that I am motivated by fear) in answering yours. Really?
Just because you don't lie my answers does not mean I haven't answered.
All you have to do is pick 1, 2, or 3 or list an alternative. What are you scared of?
It isn't about being scared. I asked you a question. You responded to my question with a question - but your question wasn't related to mine - it was changing the discussion. I am attempting to return it to where it was. You answer my question, and then if you want, I will answer yours. It's quite simple. What's more than a little humorous to me is the fact that you seem to be unwilling to answer my question while absolutely insisting (and suggesting that I am motivated by fear) in answering yours. Really?
Ben M.
No problem, thought I'd answered and I apologise if I haven't. What was the question?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
1: Is God more of an idea-for-idea kind of translator or a word-for-word kind of translator?
or, put another way,
Do you see God as more of a formal equivalence kind of translator, or as more of a dynamic equivalence kind of translator?
Ben M.
I don't see God as being involved in any way with translations of scripture.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Drifting - let's see if I understand this - because you keep taking it someplace else, that I am not intending to go with this question. I am not interesting in scriptures at all as a back drop for this question. But, can we assume instead that you cannot envision a situation in which God would translate anything at all? Is that where your answer is?