“Wither she did go” ??

[malkie]

Of course, I may also be completely out to sea on this issue.

I don't think you're out to sea at all and you make a lot sense. But, with that said, you should listen to your wife MORE often! I can tell you from past experience, wives are usually right.

I'll be sure to let her know.

A few years ago I asked my wife if she'd like to meet you, if it was OK with you. We had planned to pass through the city where I believed you lived, and I wanted to ask you for coffee/lunch/whatever. As it happened we didn't go that way, but we did have a chance to meet a couple of other people I'd known only online - four in total that I can think of right now. We have had tentative plans to see a few others, as we pass through the US on the way to Mexico, but have struck out, for various reasons, on four or five.

[Shulem]

Let's peek at Josephus and see what we find. In both cases the ship is nongender:

After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink, Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brethren, together with Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was the commander of King Agrippa’s forces, ran away from the city, and went to Cestius.

But when the people saw that the armed men were about to draw their swords, they cried out; at which cry Josephus turned himself about, and when he saw that the swords were just at his throat, he marched away in great haste to the sea shore, and left off that speech which he was going to make to the people, upon an elevation of six cubits high. He then seized on a ship which lay in the haven, and leaped into it, with two of his guards, and fled away into the midst of the lake.

[toon]

But we have only the "translation" into English to go on when determining how these hypothetical people referred to anything. And we will never (hah!) have another translation from the plates. How could we ever effectively question a putative "feminine connotation" in a non-existent source language with no hope of another translation?

Well, when referencing a ship, it seems there are a few choices available:

• She
• He
• It

Understanding how the Jews actually referred to ships will help put things in better perspective when comparing that to Smith's novel.

I think that would help, but I'm not sure it would be determinative.

If I were translating to English from a language that had masculine/feminine nouns and pronouns, I could render a third person singular feminine subject pronoun either "it" or "she." Both would technically be correct, but "it" arguably could be the better translation because that's how you'd say or write it in English. If I were to use "she" instead, it could be that I'm just translating a feminine pronoun into a feminine pronoun unnecessarily. But it could also mean that I'm anthropomorphizing a boat. So there seem to be at least two questions: (1) whether ancient Semitic languages had words for boats that were masculine, feminine, neuter, or a combination (regardless of whether there was some reformed Egyptian script), and (2) whether ancient Semitic peoples/Israelites anthropomorphized boats.

Even if it turns out that all Semitic words for boats, ships, etc., were masculine and that no anthropomorphizing of boats, ships, etc., happened, I'd wage that even the s*******t of apologists could wiggle their way out of this.

But I do think this is interesting.

Joseph Smith, showed his gift for translation when Lehi said, "Avast. Thar be land ahoy me hearties!"

Herman Melville had not yet written Moby Dick at this time.

ByTW, does anyone know how Captain Kidd referred to his ship? Was the chest of gold doubloons and pieces of eight also referred to as she?

Thar she blows. Was Moby Dick male or female?

[Shulem]

Even if it turns out that all Semitic words for boats, ships, etc., were masculine and that no anthropomorphizing of boats, ships, etc., happened, I'd wage that even the shittiest of apologists could wiggle their way out of this.

But I do think this is interesting.

I find it interesting too and would love a definitive answer from a true-blue biblical scholar such as Bokovoy. Somebody who knows the ancient literature and customs of the Jews during the era in question. Surely this matter has been addressed in academic circles in which I know little of.

Here is a fresh dig in which sex is not expressively given:

R. Hanan b. Rabha in the name of Rabh said again: On the day when Abraham our father departed from this world, all the great men of the nations stood up in a file and said: Woe to the world, that has lost its leader! and woe to the ship, that has lost its steerer!

In this case the earth and the ship is an "it". We are not given the expression of mother earth or mothership. If ever I thought the feminine would creep into the definition this would be a prime time to do it! But not so.

[Kishkumen]

Although it probably requires no repetition, I don’t find this all that significant.

[Shulem]

Although it probably requires no repetition, I don’t find this all that significant.

Well, there are a lot of things you don't find significant. On the other hand, there are things you find significant in which I find to be insignificant. So, I guess we're even.

[Kishkumen]

Well, there are a lot of things you don't find significant. On the other hand, there are things you find significant in which I find to be insignificant. So, I guess we're even.

Probably not, but oh well!

The Book of Mormon tells us that it's Alma and Mormon doing the talking, not Joseph Smith who was supposed to be translating what THEY said, not reinterpreting what they said.

Every translation is an interpretation.

[Shulem]

The Book of Mormon tells us that it's Alma and Mormon doing the talking, not Joseph Smith who was supposed to be translating what THEY said, not reinterpreting what they said.

Every translation is an interpretation.

Yes, every translator will give their own translation. Joseph Smith favored the KJV and wrote it into his own Book of Mormon script. I think we can all agree that the KJV is not the best biblical translation. Let' s look at a couple of examples that I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith would have thoroughly endorsed because they read the same, unchanged, in his New Translation of the Bible.

Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden.

And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive.

Thus we see that the KJV and Joseph Smith's New Translation preferred a modern sailor talk translation for female ship gender. But is that right? Is that accurate? What did the author (Luke) originally pen? Something on the lines of this, perhaps:

• ἀποφορτιζόμενον τὸν γόμον
  unloading the cargo

• ἐφερόμεθα
  we were driven along

[Kishkumen]

Meh, I love the KJV, which is a gorgeous religious artifact in its own right. The Book of Mormon is also a remarkable work, and the sailor talk just makes it better. I guess that is where the two of us differ. You see these things as evidence that something is amiss. I see delightful quirkiness in it all. The more I learn about the Book of Μοrmon, the more fascinating it becomes. As was the case last time we disagreed on something like this, I can only reiterate my gratitude that you bring these things to my attention, as they generally make me more interested and enthused about the Book of Mormon. You are right, there is a lot to examine there. You are also right that it does not conform with people’s expectations. Οf course, those expectations are often just as problematic as the supposed problems themselves.

[Shulem]

Meh, I love the KJV, which is a gorgeous religious artifact in its own right.

You can say that because you born after 1611. Prior to that, no can do.

The Book of Mormon is also a remarkable work, and the sailor talk just makes it better. I guess that is where the two of us differ.

It is a remarkable work, I agree. It's very comprehensive in many ways. But with that said, its workmanship bears a lot of plagiarism.

You see these things as evidence that something is amiss. I see delightful quirkiness in it all.

I love to find fault where fault should be found.

Enos
More on the 179 years

The more I learn about the Book of Μοrmon, the more fascinating it becomes. As was the case last time we disagreed on something like this, I can only reiterate my gratitude that you bring these things to my attention, as they generally make me more interested and enthused about the Book of Mormon. You are right, there is a lot to examine there. You are also right that it does not conform with people’s expectations. Οf course, those expectations are often just as problematic as the supposed problems themselves.

For me, I want to read what was originally penned. I want to read exactly what the originally author wrote. If it's a girl, then let it be female. If it's a boy, then let it be male. If it is neither, then let it be an it. But I want the RIGHT word!