Buffalo wrote:Tight as in, God gave Joseph Smith the exact words to use as a sort of close captioning in the seer stones. Joseph didn't have to translate a foreign language. God just showed him the English words to use. If something was misspelled by the scribe, the word(s) in the stone wouldn't go away until it was corrected.
Do the scribes, or those who supply us any information about the translation process, say that about every word? really? And ultimately, if God was the decider of words used, why is it not possible that God Himself quoted the scriptural words, since the thoughts themselves were the same?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
It seems to me that Nephi quoting Deutro-Isaiah negates the need to spend time on any other inconsistency with the Book of Mormon. This on it's own is cast iron evidence of it being a fake.
In terms of Stem's "loose translation" theory, Joseph didn't translate, he merely narrated the words that appeared on the stone that he had placed into his hat.
If it's wrong, God got it wrong or Joseph's a fraud....
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
It seems to me that Nephi quoting Deutro-Isaiah negates the need to spend time on any other inconsistency with the Book of Mormon. This on it's own is cast iron evidence of it being a fake.
In terms of Stem's "loose translation" theory, Joseph didn't translate, he merely narrated the words that appeared on the stone that he had placed into his hat.
If it's wrong, God got it wrong or Joseph's a fraud....
100% agree. I have yet to see any sort of effective defense against that fact (Nephi anachronistically copying Deutero Isaiah from the Brass plates). So far all I've seen by way of defense is:
Appeal to fringe scholarship Appeal to self-serving, ad hoc "loose translation" ideas about the Brass Plates inconsistent with the actual text
Last edited by Guest on Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
It's a "tight" translation because Joseph, neither having nor even claiming to have any translation abilities at this time was, according to him, only able to produce an English translation through the gift and power of God. There can only be one meaning to this: the words were given him by God. That statement, of course, does not go into any possible explanation of the mechanics of such a process, but rather merely states that this is what it boils down to. So, no one gets to claim something along the lines of Joseph struggling to work his way through the "charactors", which would indeed be painstaking, and then periodically saying "Hey! This is quite like [insert Biblical passage]. I'll just quote from that because it will be so much easier," since that would imply that he was working out the meaning for himself, as a normal translator would do. It never ceases to amaze me the ease with which apologists will slip back and forth between claiming that Joseph translated by the power of God ("It only took 65 days!") and implying that any difficulties encountered or inconsistencies found are the fault of Joseph's shortcomings as a translator, e.g.:
stemmy wrote:Moroni could have expressed a similar idea, in his own tongue, and through translation the words came out the same as other scripture….
spacey wrote:I would merely suppose that Joseph Smith knew he Bible fairly well…and merely quoted it when he came upon somthing [sic] familiar.
-"I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was." -"Well, it must not have been very important or you wouldn't've forgotten it!" -"Oh, I remember. I'm radioactive."
Buffalo wrote:Tight as in, God gave Joseph Smith the exact words to use as a sort of close captioning in the seer stones. Joseph didn't have to translate a foreign language. God just showed him the English words to use. If something was misspelled by the scribe, the word(s) in the stone wouldn't go away until it was corrected.
Do the scribes, or those who supply us any information about the translation process, say that about every word? really? And ultimately, if God was the decider of words used, why is it not possible that God Himself quoted the scriptural words, since the thoughts themselves were the same?
What reason do you have to think the process went any differently than described? And why would God want to quote a scribe who so brazenly distorted His word?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:What reason do you have to think the process went any differently than described? And why would God want to quote a scribe who so brazenly distorted His word?
I did not say I think the process went differently than described. And, as I've said, the message is what's important not the actual wording. God isn't after people for expressing true principles, at least that's not he impression I have.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:What reason do you have to think the process went any differently than described? And why would God want to quote a scribe who so brazenly distorted His word?
I did not say I think the process went differently than described. And, as I've said, the message is what's important not the actual wording. God isn't after people for expressing true principles, at least that's not he impression I have.
The passage quoted is not original to the New Testament text. It was added later by a different scribe. a.k.a. a forgery
Was the scribe inspired by God to add to the Mark text? Why didn't the original author get inspired to write it down in the first place since it is clearly such an important gospel truth?
Why does the church teach that is was wicked scribes that altered the Bible if it now appears they were actually inspired by God to make the changes they made?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Buffalo wrote:What reason do you have to think the process went any differently than described? And why would God want to quote a scribe who so brazenly distorted His word?
I did not say I think the process went differently than described. And, as I've said, the message is what's important not the actual wording. God isn't after people for expressing true principles, at least that's not he impression I have.
This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
just me wrote:The passage quoted is not original to the New Testament text. It was added later by a different scribe. a.k.a. a forgery
I'm not sure how that argues against my take on it.
Was the scribe inspired by God to add to the Mark text? Why didn't the original author get inspired to write it down in the first place since it is clearly such an important gospel truth?
The scribe need not be inspired to write a true piece. In effect in the scribes day there was a reliance on oral tradition. Who knows where it came from? And perhaps it was already written somewhere.
Why does the church teach that is was wicked scribes that altered the Bible if it now appears they were actually inspired by God to make the changes they made?
Why the need to be so black and white?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:This seems to be at odds with first hand descriptions of the process. It literally could not continue unless it was written exactly as shown in the stones. Apparently God thought the actual wording was important.
I don't see how it would be at odds at all. As a side note, I don't recall anything about the witnesses saying each and every word had to be written correctly before it could move forward.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.