Are you tight or loose - translatory speaking?

[_Drifting]

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?

Ben M.

Sorry I thought that was clear.
I see no reason to believe that God has been or will be involved in bringing forth scripture through any kind of translation.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

Sorry I thought that was clear.
I see no reason to believe that God has been or will be involved in bringing forth scripture through any kind of translation.

So, what about something other than scripture? You are making the question much narrower than it is. I didn't mention scripture in the question, I didn't mention Joseph Smith, I didn't mention the Book of Mormon or the Bible ... it isn't a question that is that specific.

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

Drifting writes:

Sorry I thought that was clear.
I see no reason to believe that God has been or will be involved in bringing forth scripture through any kind of translation.

So, what about something other than scripture? You are making the question much narrower than it is. I didn't mention scripture in the question, I didn't mention Joseph Smith, I didn't mention the Book of Mormon or the Bible ... it isn't a question that is that specific.

Ben M.

I see no reason for believing God has been involved in any translations.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Thank you. Now in answer to your question, I don't really subscribe to any of the three positions you offer. However, since that's not a very informative answer, let me try to explain where I disagree with them.

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

I would say that this is the closest to my personal position - however, it seems evident to me (from the position as a believer) that this cannot describe the quotation/reinscription of the KJV language in some places. So, while noting that I believe that there are exceptions where other reasons lead me to conclude otherwise, I would follow this option.

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

I don't think this is a very useful description because Joseph believes this is what is written on the plates whether or not what he received was related at all to whatever is on the plates. That is, he might have received a work of fiction (ala those who believe the Book of Mormon is a work of inspired fiction) or he might have received a very literal translation, and in both cases, it might be argued that God gave him what "He wanted him to believe was written on the plates." In any circumstance this might be true. Although in some cases, we might question whether it was a "translation" even if it was given word for word, and Joseph believed that it all came from the plates.

Obviously, given that, option three doesn't have a lot of meaning for me either.

The difference between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence is over what we see. Does God alter the text to produce a better meaning for his intended audience, or does he try to stay with a stricter sort of word based translation. In some ways, I see both issues at play based on examples from the text. So, I see elements based on the text of the Book of Mormon that I would associate with a more literal sort of word-for-word translation, and some places that I suspect a more dynamic equivalence. And in some places, I am certain that what the Book of Mormon contains does not represent a word-for-word translation of the gold plates.

Ben M.

[_Themis]

The difference between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence is over what we see. Does God alter the text to produce a better meaning for his intended audience, or does he try to stay with a stricter sort of word based translation. In some ways, I see both issues at play based on examples from the text. So, I see elements based on the text of the Book of Mormon that I would associate with a more literal sort of word-for-word translation, and some places that I suspect a more dynamic equivalence. And in some places, I am certain that what the Book of Mormon contains does not represent a word-for-word translation of the gold plates.

Ben M.

This looks to be just a slightly altered tight and loose translation. I can't help think that it comes from the same need to change from one to the other as needed to get around problematic parts of the Book of Mormon.

[_Drifting]

And in some places, I am certain that what the Book of Mormon contains does not represent a word-for-word translation of the gold plates.

Ben M.

I am interested in understanding which parts you are certain are not word for word?