Whack a Mole, err. Horse

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I believe that as the Prophet studied the plates in his own mind, that occasionally Joseph rendered a very literal translation, which could explain for interpreting words with dual meanings, such as horse/horsemen, in a somewhat verbatim manner.


This only makes sense if Joseph actually knew the language he was translating. Hence, he would recognize parash as horse instead of horsemen.

Joseph Smith didn't know the language he was translating. He wouldn't recognize the (Nephite) word parash as anything without God, in some manner, letting him know what it was.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Enuma Elish
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 pm

Post by _Enuma Elish »

Hello Beastie,

This only makes sense if Joseph actually knew the language he was translating. Hence, he would recognize parash as horse instead of horsemen.

Joseph Smith didn't know the language he was translating. He wouldn't recognize the (Nephite) word parash as anything without God, in some manner, letting him know what it was.


Since you cannot prove that there was a language written upon the plates, how can you claim that Joseph did not know the language he was translating?

Doesn't this seem a bit circular?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Since you cannot prove that there was a language written upon the plates, how can you claim that Joseph did not know the language he was translating?

Doesn't this seem a bit circular?


I do not understand the part about "you cannot prove there was a language written upon the plates." Why would I have to prove that? That is the LDS claim.

So who taught Joseph Reformed Egyptian?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Yes, I'm intrigued.

What exactly do you mean Enuma?
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...
_Enuma Elish
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 pm

Post by _Enuma Elish »

Who Knows wrote:Yes, I'm intrigued.

What exactly do you mean Enuma?


In other words, Beastie claims that Joseph did not know the language that was written upon the plates.

How can anyone know that Joseph could not translate the language upon the plates if we can not even prove that there were plates, let alone a language written upon them for Joseph Smith not to know?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

In other words, Beastie claims that Joseph did not know the language that was written upon the plates.

How can anyone know that Joseph could not translate the language upon the plates if we can not even prove that there were plates, let alone a language written upon them for Joseph Smith not to know?


David,

This is not about my argument, it is about your argument, and how you perceive it offers support for your overall theory about the Book of Mormon.

You believe there were actual plates with real words on them, and you believe that the fact that "parash", in "reformed egyptian", could have meant both horse and horsemen.

Now, if this were so, and Joseph Smith had studied reformed egyptian and had learned the word "parash" means "horse" but didn't learn, or forgot or overlooked, that it can also mean "horsemen", then your argument makes sense.

Your argument does not make sense if Joseph Smith did not know "reformed egyptian", and thereby could not make the connection between "parash" and "horse" in the first place.

Obviously, there was a divine intervention in this process, however you imagine it, and God was the one who provided the meaning of the word. God's intervening and resulting in this simple error doesn't make sense under either the tight OR loose translation theory, or your combination of the two (an ad hoc theory too convenient by half)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

What she said.

Seriously, I was surprised at that response, EE.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Enuma Elish
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 pm

Post by _Enuma Elish »

Hello Beastie,

Sorry. Just finished watching the PBS special.

This is not about my argument, it is about your argument, and how you perceive it offers support for your overall theory about the Book of Mormon.

You believe there were actual plates with real words on them,


I do.

and you believe that the fact that "parash", in "reformed egyptian", could have meant both horse and horsemen.


As I’ve illustrated, the Hebrew word parash means both horse and horseman. I believe that reformed Egyptian describes the script used by the Nephites to write their native Hebrew tongue. Therefore, the term parash, which means both horse and horseman, might have appeared on the plates.

Now, if this were so, and Joseph Smith had studied reformed egyptian and had learned the word "parash" means "horse" but didn't learn, or forgot or overlooked, that it can also mean "horsemen", then your argument makes sense.


Yes. That scenario would make sense.

Your argument does not make sense if Joseph Smith did not know "reformed egyptian", and thereby could not make the connection between "parash" and "horse" in the first place.


I’m not convinced that this scenario leads to your conclusion, but irregardless, no one can prove that Joseph did not learn some of the language on the plates and in fact, if there were real plates with a real language that Joseph was working with, I would assume that it would be highly unlikely that the Prophet would not have learned some aspects of the grammar and script.

Obviously, there was a divine intervention in this process,


I agree. But intervention does not mean that God had a tight control over the process, that the work did not come through the filter of a 19th century American prophet of God. I believe that it did.

however you imagine it, and God was the who provided the meaning of the word.


Yes, but I don’t claim to know how God provided the meaning of the word. Joseph specifically states that it was not for the world to know how God did it, and Joseph was the only one with a first hand knowledge of the process (though I strongly suspect that he himself did not even fully understand the mechanisms).

I believe that as instructed, Joseph studied the information contained on the plates in his own mind and with the direct assistance of revelation, produced an inspired, albeit, non-perfect production. No doubt part of the work also involved seeing words appear in his hat via the seer stone, and some of the work derived from taking portions of the King James Version of Isaiah and placing them, as directed by the Spirit of the Lord, directly into the book.

God's intervening and resulting in this simple error doesn't make sense under either the tight OR loose translation theory, or your combination of the two (an ad hoc theory too convenient by half)


It doesn’t make sense if you assume that God fed Joseph the Book of Mormon word by word. I don’t know anyone who believes in such a process. I certainly don’t.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I’m not convinced that this scenario leads to your conclusion, but irregardless, no one can prove that Joseph did not learn some of the language on the plates and in fact, if there were real plates with a real language that Joseph was working with, I would assume that it would be highly unlikely that the Prophet would not have learned some aspects of the grammar and script.


Who was teaching him?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Enuma Elish
_Emeritus
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 pm

Post by _Enuma Elish »

Who taught him? I believe that the Lord taught Joseph Smith throughout the entire process. However, if Joseph was truly struggling to try to interpret an authentic, ancient script, then no doubt the Prophet would have picked up many issues on his own and some of these elements, in fact, might represent the "mistakes of men," allotted for in the very title page itself.
Post Reply