DiscussMormonism.com

Do you subscribe to a tight or loose translation and why?

Ok, so a more complex look at my views and rationale.

I started (lo these many years ago) on ZLMB as a fan of a loose translation. I have since gone 180 degrees from that, and am probably the most vocal proponent of a tight translation you will find. My rationale isn't very simple, but, I will say (at the risk of over simplifying and creating a caricature of others) that with a few exceptions, most members who opt for a loose translation (of the group that actually cares) do so without really understanding what it is that they are, merely that it helps them deal with certain perceived difficulties. Some, who have spent a great deal of time looking at the text from this perspective have very rational views that disagree with mine, but they nearly always come at the text from a different perspective, and the views are often reconcilable to some extent.

For myself, I see a Joseph Smith as only a reader - and at times what I might term an incompetent reader of the text (this goes beyond the popular bit where Joseph says something about Jerusalem having a wall). Many will have problems with my expression here because ultimately it means that Joseph was no better at interpreting the text than anyone else would be (perhaps far less so, as he didn't have any kind of background that we often think is helpful). My own interests lay a great deal in how the text presents itself as narrative, in the various stylistic differences that we see in the text, and in how the text uses and reuses sources (at least when we can determine what those sources are).

Ben M.

Translation is neither loose or tight..... It's BOTH depending on the context and passage.

If one holds strict to either position they are going to face problems. Seen it many times.

ldsfaqs wrote:Translation is neither loose or tight..... It's BOTH depending on the context and passage.

If one holds strict to either position they are going to face problems. Seen it many times.

lol

Benjamin McGuire wrote:Ok, so a more complex look at my views and rationale.

I started (lo these many years ago) on ZLMB as a fan of a loose translation. I have since gone 180 degrees from that, and am probably the most vocal proponent of a tight translation you will find. My rationale isn't very simple, but, I will say (at the risk of over simplifying and creating a caricature of others) that with a few exceptions, most members who opt for a loose translation (of the group that actually cares) do so without really understanding what it is that they are, merely that it helps them deal with certain perceived difficulties. Some, who have spent a great deal of time looking at the text from this perspective have very rational views that disagree with mine, but they nearly always come at the text from a different perspective, and the views are often reconcilable to some extent.

For myself, I see a Joseph Smith as only a reader - and at times what I might term an incompetent reader of the text (this goes beyond the popular bit where Joseph says something about Jerusalem having a wall). Many will have problems with my expression here because ultimately it means that Joseph was no better at interpreting the text than anyone else would be (perhaps far less so, as he didn't have any kind of background that we often think is helpful). My own interests lay a great deal in how the text presents itself as narrative, in the various stylistic differences that we see in the text, and in how the text uses and reuses sources (at least when we can determine what those sources are).

Ben M.

Ben.

As a subscriber to 'Joseph as reader' in terms of receiving the Book of Mormon contents how do rationalise the errant words and passages? Such as the original transcription positioning Christ and The Father as the same person?

ldsfaqs wrote:Translation is neither loose or tight..... It's BOTH depending on the context and passage.

If one holds strict to either position they are going to face problems. Seen it many times.

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

Translation loose or tight? Both!
Nephite civilization in Meso-America or covering whole continent? Both!
Urim and Thummim or peepstone? Both!
J. Smith sexual pervert or commanded by God? Both!
Book of Abraham directly translated from Papyrus or not? Both!
Universal flood or local event? Both!

It all depends on the context of the point that a particular apologist is trying to make at a particular time. It isn't fair to pin them down to one answer or another.

aranyborju wrote: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

Drifting writes:

As a subscriber to 'Joseph as reader' in terms of receiving the Book of Mormon contents how do rationalise the errant words and passages? Such as the original transcription positioning Christ and The Father as the same person?

Give me some specific examples, and I will explain (not rationalize).

Ben M.

Thank you for that Runtu,
I had forgotten about that sketch...a classic.

Benjamin McGuire wrote:Drifting writes:

As a subscriber to 'Joseph as reader' in terms of receiving the Book of Mormon contents how do rationalise the errant words and passages? Such as the original transcription positioning Christ and The Father as the same person?

Give me some specific examples, and I will explain (not rationalize).

Ben M.

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

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.

1 Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

1 Nephi 11:32 ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...

1 Nephi 13:40 ...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world...

In subsequent editions the words 'Son of' are introduced.