can you give us the slightest evidence from this material for not understanding Smith’s words ‘translating’, ‘deciphering’ and ‘translate’ as intended to be understood in the plain, literal and grammatical sense?
Because Joseph never understood these terms, when "translating" the Book of Mormon or any other text, to mean anything other than "to receive the correct interpretation of the text through revelation". He never understood, or intended his readers or hearers to understand, anything other than that he had received, corrected, amended or expanded ancient texts through divine means (whether or not he had the original texts in his possession, as he did not when he corrected, amended and expanded texts of the New Testament).
Will:
He could not, for example, have pointed to a leaf and said, "There's Alma giving his lecture on faith."
Mr. Wizard:
But that is exactly the kind of thing he purports to do :
Actually, no. He claimed to have had access to ancient gold plates containing the records, not leaves of edible vegetation.
Just where does the rubber meet the road here Will? What do you have that goes beyond naked assertion? … All you have is faith, sir. That you pretend you have anything more is offensive to good sense.
Actually, Will has knowledge within himself, through his testimony and witness of the Holy Spirit, as well as faith in Jesus Christ, to inform and guide his thinking and position on this issue, as well as other subjects of apologetic interest. What is really offensive is that you think your prejudices, subjective psychological biases, and soft bellied inferential justifications for you own position are any match for judicious logic, critical thinking and the sword of the Spirit (thoughts and words infused with spiritual insight and knowledge).
Those are the right words for you. You are abusing not only your readers' intelligence, but your own.
Until you can refute Will's augments with something other than your usual baby Madalyn Murray O' Hairesque posturing, he's going to continue to get the best of you and you're going to continue to look like an angry, sour atheist liberal with a neurotic psychological fixation against religion.
Trevor opines:
Well thank goodness for that. Because your conclusions are nonsensical. That you would dedicate your good time to something as pointless as proving that Joseph Smith possessed texts that he could not translate so he could not translate them but instead have the interpretation beamed into his brain by divine means is truly astounding. It would be one thing if God had left these missing texts behind to verify the miracle Joseph supposedly performed with his aid, but instead all we have is the non-translations. Now the existence of missing artifacts serves as the evidence that Joseph Smith translated something that he did not, after all, translate. You really ought to give up this wasted effort and join Paul O. At least he has a respectable position.
Combine vulgar, simplistic Saganesque positivism with a thorough misunderstanding or ignorance (volitional or not) of the subject matter involved, and we have Trevor.
That one assumes, a priori, that Joseph could not, have received the "translation" of the textual materials he had in his possession is really where "the rubber meets the road" for Trevor and others of the critics of the Church for whom the entire edifice of text critical argumentation and research is nothing more than a very sophisticated intellectual carnival who's intent is to show that Joseph was not and could not have been a prophet. It is further to show, in a much broader sense, that prophets do not and cannot exist, which is itself a vehicle who's intent is to persuade its audience that God does not and cannot exist, who's ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that mankind is alone in a mechanistic, random universe with only Dialogue, Sunstone, PBS, the "Brights", and people like Brent Metcalfe to guide us on our way.
It is all really, despite its apparent sincerity, nothing more than an intellectualized paean to the arid, acidic and barren secular humanism, or naturalism, that is the only straw left to grasp when the gospel has been abandoned and we are left to lurch, grope and flail for something with which to orient ourselves within the "mists of darkness".
The bitterness, anger and resentment with which those who have released their grasp of the iron rod and wandered off down "strange roads" turn and rend the Church and its members is rather a fascinating study in itself, is it not?
Just where does the rubber meet the road here Will? What do you have that goes beyond naked assertion? Missing texts? The expert opinions and testimonies of non-experts? The obfuscations of apologists? A warm feeling in your bosom when you read the Book of Abraham? All you have is faith, sir. That you pretend you have anything more is offensive to good sense.
Will has, conclusively in my opinion, demostrated that, whatever the KEP was, it was not the source for the Book of Abraham. His singular achievement at his FAIR presentation was to turn the entire forty year augment of the critics on its head by demonstrating that the causal relation of the KEP to the Book of Abraham is the reverse of that claimed by the critics: the source of the KEP is, in point of fact, sections of the Book of Abraham (and the D&C), not the reverse.
Now Trevor, please, we know there were large quantities of missing textual material because we have the documented eyewitness testimony of those who observed it, and multiple attestations to such texts at that.
All your dyspeptic splashing and foundering indicates is exactly what any fair minded observer would conclude: that you are in the deep end of the pool and in need of something to help you stay afloat.
Given you posting history in this forum, and your inability to be civil and intellectually serious even in the upper room of the Trailer Park, I would be inclined to throw you a a floor safe, even though the gospel requires my to throw you some water wings.
But, not to digress, here's your life preserver: what the text of the Book of Abraham actually says and its relation to known ancient texts of similar form and content.