Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

that doesn't mean that's not how he did it.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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 Indy Coug

Your example is not analogous.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/1,4-7#1

The Book of Mormon narrative makes it clear that Nephi included scripture from Isaiah. Therefore, it follows that the plates contained those scriptures, not some editorial insert from Joseph Smith.

I'm aware of what the BoM narrative says. Parsing what the plates "said" (or even knowing if they "said" anything at all) from what Joseph Smith "said" is nigh to impossible. What liberties Joseph Smith took in constructing the work we know as the BoM are not known.

Put simply, you can't demonstrate what the plates did or did not contain.

But then, I'm not interested in the attempt. Oh, I'm aware of the issues, but as far as I'm concerned all kinds of documents that don't make fantastic translation/inspiration claims are scripture. Documents that have been taken to be something other than what I believe them to be are scripture too.

I could go on and on, but it wouldn't change that I consider the BoM to be scripture. For me, it all comes down to faith and fruits. Reason, while useful for interrogating faith, can't replace it (the correlative opposite is also true).

Whatever our disagreements, we can agree that we have faith in the BoM as scripture, can't we?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I've already replied to that post.

You didn't speak to the point of it being a bad analogy.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Given that there are no independent means of confirming the Book of Mormon's supernatural origins, I think we require something more than bald guessing, yes.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

I don't disagree with you, which is why Occam's razor doesn't really apply here. (read: you're making my point to Chino for me) The most logical solution is not necessarily the correct one.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is that the only suggestion that this scenario provides?

Not necessarily. But the cognitive leap from "inspired copying" to plagiarism is tiny.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm aware of what the BoM narrative says. Parsing what the plates "said" (or even knowing if they "said" anything at all) from what Joseph Smith "said" is nigh to impossible. What liberties Joseph Smith took in constructing the work we know as the BoM are not known.

Put simply, you can't demonstrate what the plates did or did not contain.

Don't you think this is a specious argument? Was there ever any doubt on the minds of anyone associated with the prophet, to say nothing of the modern church today, that the plates contained the same Book we read today?

And does it not strike anyone as odd that we are continually seeing strange hypotheses about the original of the Book without the slightest support in the historical record?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

And does it not strike anyone as odd that we are continually seeing strange hypotheses about the original of the Book without the slightest support in the historical record?

The independent record is deficient and incomplete, so why would it be logical to find an answer to a question with an incomplete record?

Relying upon a relatively empty transcript is a not a basis to dismiss theories based on clues within the text itself. That's the basis of academic textual critical analysis. That's what Skousen has been doing with the Amlicite versus Amalekite issue.