Runtu wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but whether there are chariots or cavalry, you still need horses to have "horsemen." For the life of me, I can't figure out how your argument works, David.
Thank you Runtu for speaking up. I also still don't understand his point or purpose of his argument.
Yes. Ok, well I won't say anything more about "parash" because David obviously knows infinitely more about Hebrew than I do. But every one of the pictures of this "parash" included horses. Simply put, you don't have horsemen without horses.
And I also like the reply someone else gave earlier which is that you can argue the nuance all you want with what the Hebrew word "parash" might have meant, but Joseph Smith didn't know Hebrew, and he would not have been limited in his "translation" efforts by this seeming ancient Hebrew ambiguity. It certainly isn't ambiguous in English, and it's certainly not unknowable to God, if he exists. I am confident that between God and Joseph Smith, they could have figured out what to say so that it actually conveyed the intended meaning plainly and preciously.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
A short while ago, I had an exchange on the MADB with Brant Gardner in runtu's fantastic "Book of Mormon Evidences" thread. I said:
The Dude wrote:It's easy to speculate when you treat the "translation" process as a black box, producing tight translations sometimes, loose translations other times.
Brant replied:
Brant Gardner wrote:Of course that would be a terrible methodology. That is the reason that you won't find me suggesting that Hebraisms in the text demonstrate historicity. That position requires a tight translation that is antithetical to the position I am suggesting about the translation.
So Brant takes a position that is antithetical to "tight translation".
Ben McGuire is "in favor of an absolutely tight translation process."
And David Bokovoy has "no problem moving back and forth."
I think it's time for the apologetic team to use one of their timeouts and come up with a coherent game plan.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
As the apologist takes a stance on the translation process, I'm sure they do so partly because they see problems with the other translation processes.
Ben sees problems with a loose translation. Brant sees problems with a tight translation.
Shouldn't that give them a clue?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
A clue as to what? Obviously we are all wrong right?
The problem with this kind of approach is that it isn't very useful Who Knows. After all, Dale is convinced that Spaulding played a critical role in the writing of the Book of Mormon. Vogel thinks that Spaulding had nothing to do with it. Shouldn't they get a clue from this?
Benjamin McGuire wrote:A clue as to what? Obviously we are all wrong right?
The problem with this kind of approach is that it isn't very useful Who Knows. After all, Dale is convinced that Spaulding played a critical role in the writing of the Book of Mormon. Vogel thinks that Spaulding had nothing to do with it. Shouldn't they get a clue from this?
Hmm, well, I guess it depends on what the 'problems' mean for you. Do the problems associated with accepting a loose translation mean that the Book of Mormon could possibly have not come from 'god'? And vice-versa for Brant? Maybe, maybe not.
Although Dale and Dan have different theories, i'm pretty sure they agree that 'god didn't do it'.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Ben McGuire wrote:A clue as to what? Obviously we are all wrong right?
That something is wrong. Here we have three smart guys espousing exclusive theories.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it isn't very useful Who Knows. After all, Dale is convinced that Spaulding played a critical role in the writing of the Book of Mormon. Vogel thinks that Spaulding had nothing to do with it. Shouldn't they get a clue from this?
What isn't useful?
Although you probably meant nothing more than "tu quoqe" with it, now that you mention Vogel and Dale, it makes me think that a useful approach might be for you guys to have a debate like V&D did. You could argue for tight translation, Brant for loose translation, with David representing a blended approach. I would love to see you and Brant explain to him why the blended approach is a "terrible methodology."
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
As the apologist takes a stance on the translation process, I'm sure they do so partly because they see problems with the other translation processes.
Ben sees problems with a loose translation. Brant sees problems with a tight translation.
Shouldn't that give them a clue?
Ben's right. But the apologetic position is more complicated than that. The translation is loose when their's a problem, but tight when chiasmus or hebraisms are present. Loose for when the Bible is quoted anachronistically, tight when it' quoted correctly.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Although Dale and Dan have different theories, I'm pretty sure they agree that 'god didn't do it'.
Yes, and of course the corrolary is that while Brant and David and myself have different views, I am pretty sure that we all agree that 'god was involved'. So what kind of point is this? Particularly since, there isn't a lot of difference (in terms of ideology) between those two groups and these default positions. The natualist theory after all, believes that divine intervention doesn't occur. So any possible alternative (no matter how unlikely) will Trump any alternative involving interactions with a deity precisely because it isn't possible at all.
Dan Vogel writes:
Ben's right. But the apologetic position is more complicated than that. The translation is loose when their's a problem, but tight when chiasmus or hebraisms are present. Loose for when the Bible is quoted anachronistically, tight when it' quoted correctly.
Dan of course, is making wild generalizations. I believe the translation is tight all the time. And even with this can explain for anachronsims, and so on. Just as Brant would suggest that its loose all the time and deal with Hebraisms under his model. We are not so inconsistent as Dan would suggest.
Although you probably meant nothing more than "tu quoqe" with it, now that you mention Vogel and Dale, it makes me think that a useful approach might be for you guys to have a debate like V&D did. You could argue for tight translation, Brant for loose translation, with David representing a blended approach. I would love to see you and Brant explain to him why the blended approach is a "terrible methodology."
What makes it terrible? It would be a fun discussion - and untimately I think a lot of people would find it fascinating - because Brant and I take very,very different issues into consideration and look at them in different ways. But, ultimately, I think that all the diversity ultimately tells us is that there isn't a clear cut argument which can be made about the authorship of the Book of Mormon.