Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because if he copied passages straight from the KJV, it suggests that those passages were not in actuality included on the plates, or that at the very least he borrowed heavily therefrom. It lends credence to the accusation that Joseph Smith made up the whole Book of Mormon story, and inserted KJV passages when he got lazy.

So you would accuse the Gospels writers of getting lazy and making up the whole Jesus story because they copied and pasted from the LXX when Jesus was really quoting the Masoretic Text?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

So you would accuse the Gospels writers of getting lazy and making up the whole Jesus story because they copied and pasted from the LXX when Jesus was really quoting the Masoretic Text?

Did you miss Indy's response to you on this question?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=75

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Neither of these suppositions is supported by the historical accounts of the translation.

[quote=Tex;127658]
Do you believe we have sufficient detail as to the revelation process to exclude it as a possibility?

IMHO, we certainly lack significant details and it is ambiguous enough to include this logical possibility.

Originally Posted by Tex

If you include God's power as a premise, then why are we even talking about him copying from the KJV? Presumably if Nephi actually included portions of Isaiah on the plates, Joseph Smith would be given the power to translate them as he claimed.

You are presuming quite a bit. It is equally logical God could have handed it to JS fully translated without erros. Why didn't he do that?

It is not illogical to make JS work as a translator, struggling through recognition so that he would grow and learn the principles more deeply than if it were just magically revealed to him in perfect form.

Can't you see the pedagogical value of God forcing a prophet to compare biblical passages, to ponder them and to verify their important in providing a midrashic work of revelation and translation? Those principles would be so well taught as to become ingrained within him.

Originally Posted by Tex

Because if he copied passages straight from the KJV, it suggests that those passages were not in actuality included on the plates, or that at the very least he borrowed heavily therefrom. It lends credence to the accusation that Joseph Smith made up the whole Book of Mormon story, and inserted KJV passages when he got lazy.

Is that the only suggestion that this scenario provides?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

But that's not the same as Joseph picking up his KJV and engaging in a copy and paste exercise, is it?

No, but if he were inspired to do that very thing I wouldn't have a problem with it either. But as some have pointed out, there is no supporting evidence that he did the copy and paste thing. It's kind of hard to do that with your head stuck in a hat. Even the anti's can't get around that.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because if he copied passages straight from the KJV, it suggests that those passages were not in actuality included on the plates, or that at the very least he borrowed heavily therefrom. It lends credence to the accusation that Joseph Smith made up the whole Book of Mormon story, and inserted KJV passages when he got lazy.

This definitely smacks to me that you're too worried about anti-Mormon arguments. There certainly are more conclusions from the KJV insertion theory than he made the whole thing up and inserted KJV when he got lazy.

And BlueK's comment that God directed him to translate in KJV since it was more understandable...how different is that from what the rest are saying? I don't see a material difference.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This definitely smacks to me that you're too worried about anti-Mormon arguments.

It sounds like that, he is more worried what people might think, than what actually happened.

I wonder might have happened and then piece it together, not worry what it looks like before I piece it together.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Spare me the lecture on your sliding scale of name-calling. What this boils down to is: "when we do it=good; when you do it=bad." Thanks for clarifying that double-standard for me.

As for my "meaningless" claim: You claim to not be an apostate, and are annoyed by the suggestion. I claim to not be a "mullah" and am annoyed by the suggestion. See the similarity?

The words are of vastly different magnitude. You trying to minimize that fact by saying they are on a "sliding scale" is ridiculous.

Oh, well since they are both annoying they must be equal then.

Oh yes, I see. It's all clear now.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The words are of vastly different magnitude. You trying to minimize that fact by saying their on a "sliding scale" is ridiculous.

Oh, well since their both annoying they must be equal then.

Oh yes, I see. It's all clear now.

By Tex's analogy, it's the same thing to call one a no-account-good-for-nothing-faithless-son-of-a-bitch, as it is to call somebody a zealot.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

By Tex's analogy, it's the same thing to call one a no-account-good-for-nothing-faithless-son-of-a-bitch, as it is to call somebody a zealot.

You didn't do very well on the SATs, did you?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Did you miss Indy's response to you on this question?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=75

I've already replied to that post.