KJV,God & BoM- for Ben

[_marg]

I'm addressing this in a separate thread Ben, so as to not increase chaos in the Spalding thread.

marg previously: As far as for religous purposes...in and of itself there is nothing special or connected to any divine entity about middle english. Until you can objectively establish God ..claiming God is connected to any book can not be established either. Any divine claims amount to no more than mere assertions. And since you are familiar with the concept of circular reasoning, you can appreciate that conclusion based upon premises which are mere assertions are not reliable and should be rejected as established.e]


Ben previously: What's interesting to me about this argument is that it is completely pointless. It is easy to suggest what God wouldn't do, isn't it.

The point of my argument Ben is that claiming that a God has some connection to middle/Elizabethan english or KJV language is an assertion. Any conclusion derived from assertions amount to circular reasoning of the sort that they establish nothing. The conclusions aren't established in any way, they are merely a function of asserted premises, which require nothing more than willy nilly ..say so of an individual/individuals. So you telling me the Book of Mormon is ancient because it says so..does not warrant accepting that assertion. Similarly a claim that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired because J.Smith says so, does not warrant accepting that assertion.

So I didn't argue God wouldn't do it, I argued that if you intend in some way to bring "God" into an argument as one of the premises then the conclusion is not warranted, has not been established, because God hasn't been established.

Why don't you tell us what exactly a divine translation would look like.

That's your job, not mine.

Is God a word-for-word kind of translator?

First you have to establish God. It is a silly question to ask me Ben. I'm not making any claims about God. I can speculate and say why I think KJV english was used for the Book of Mormon. I can speculate by whom and how the Book of Mormon was written given evidence. I can speculate why individuals might want to claim a God was involved. I can even wildly for fun, speculate what a supreme all knowing entity should one exist, might do in a particular circumstance based upon what an intelligent individual might logically do..with the assumption that at a bare minimum a supreme intelligent being would be at least at the intellectual level of the average human being..but hopefully even more intelligent.

An idea-for-idea kind of guy? Who would its intended audience be? And so on. These questions all fascinate me. (There is even some small body of published literature that tends to touch on these issues which I am familiar with). But if you want to make the statements you make above, I would appreciate some answers to these questions here. Ultimately, this is simply another appeal to the angel, but I am curious to know if you have actually given it any thought at all.

The only thing I speculate about the concept of God, is that when others want to employ that God in a claim and they also claim God is all knowing and all powerful, not a bumbling fool, then I expect from that God behavior to be as good as an intelligent individual.

The reason why I suggest that it is simply an appeal to the angel is that it really has no impact on the question of the Spalding story. Your deciding what its not really has no real value on the question of what it is.

The question of "why was the Book of Mormon written in KJV english?" is a valid one and does pertain not only to whether Spalding's work was plagiarized, but as well, whether Smith & Co. likely or not used KJV english as a literary device hoping to influence a naïve audience that the Book of Mormon is sacred, taking advantage of the fact that the intended audience views the common Bible of the day written in KJV english as sacred.

The realities are that there is nothing that establishes middle english.as somehow God connected. How could is possibly when not even God is established.

In this regard, what I find most interesting are places in the Book of Mormon text that seem to reference, quote, or allude to biblical texts where the KJV language is not used. These, I find quite fascinating. But again, that's a whole different issue.

I have no idea why you find that interesting.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

The point of my argument Ben is that claiming that a God has some connection to middle/Elizabethan english or KJV language is an assertion.

But I didn't make this assertion. If you read it that way, I apologize for the confusion. The language used is determined, I said, by three issues. The first is the language of the speaker/author. The second is the language of the audience. The third was the substance of the message. In the case of something given by God, we assume that there is no limitations on God. But, we do assume limitations in the audience. And so, in this case, the KJV language would - even if we assume that God is the translator - be determined by that audience. In fact, we make this assumption any time that God speaks in some form to mankind, and our sacred texts seem to confirm this notion (i.e. Exod. 33:11).

That's your job, not mine.

No, because in the previous thread, I was not the one making assumptions based on what my expecations of what God would or wouldn't do. You clearly did this. Let me refresh your memory:

When you inspect the 1830 text it becomes very difficult to see it as coming from God and having been checked for errors by God.

This is an assertion about the nature of the process and what you expect God's role was. And I want you to justify your assumptions here.

First you have to establish God. It is a silly question to ask me Ben. I'm not making any claims about God.

You did make such a claim. I was responding to it. And then you go off again -

I can even wildly for fun, speculate what a supreme all knowing entity should one exist, might do in a particular circumstance based upon what an intelligent individual might logically do..with the assumption that at a bare minimum a supreme intelligent being would be at least at the intellectual level of the average human being..but hopefully even more intelligent.

The challenge of course is that this involves a number of assumptions - and I want you to spell out specifically what these assumptions are and what they mean for the text. And that is why I asked the questions I did.

The only thing I speculate about the concept of God, is that when others want to employ that God in a claim and they also claim God is all knowing and all powerful, not a bumbling fool, then I expect from that God behavior to be as good as an intelligent individual.

But this makes absolutely no sense. If all God does is translate, then why on earth should we start making all sorts of extra assumptions. Is God supposed to correct the text? And correct it to what? If the author of the original text made a mistake, is God supposed to correct that mistake? And this, of course, can be read on lots of levels ....

The question of "why was the Book of Mormon written in KJV english?" is a valid one and does pertain not only to whether Spalding's work was plagiarized, but as well, whether Smith & Co. likely or not used KJV english as a literary device hoping to influence a naïve audience that the Book of Mormon is sacred, taking advantage of the fact that the intended audience views the common Bible of the day written in KJV english as sacred.

However, I can come with other reasons. For example, why do you think that in the early 90s, the scholars who provided this translation of biblical texts primarily used the King James Version language verbatim (in more than 95% of the text)? I think its a reasonable question for you to answer.

[_marg]

I'm heading outside and will not respond for the rest of afternoon.

The language used is determined, I said, by three issues. The first is the language of the speaker/author. The second is the language of the audience. The third was the substance of the message. In the case of something given by God, we assume that there is no limitations on God. But, we do assume limitations in the audience. And so, in this case, the KJV language would - even if we assume that God is the translator - be determined by that audience. In fact, we make this assumption any time that God speaks in some form to mankind, and our sacred texts seem to confirm this notion (i.e. Exod. 33:11).

Wo..back up..you say "in the case of something given by God we assume"...what evidence do you have that is greater than mere assertion, that a God "gave" anything. Just because some individuals perceive a Bible connected to a God doesn't make it so. Just because a King James version of the Bible became popular based on a number of factors does not mean a God has any connection to that particular translation or the language used..in this case middle english.

Occams Razor applies:

#1 We have evidence which supports the S/R theory, the data fits together making it a strong theory. Part of that evidence are the statements collected by Hurlbut in which they acknowledge Spalding wrote a fictional historical account in Old english style to make it sound ancient.

#2 Then we have the Smith alone theory in which Smith may have deliberately chosen middle english to make the text sound not only ancient but sacred, like the Bible is perceived by many people of his intended audience. The Smith only theory is not strong for a number of reasons, one it discounts without adequate warrants Spalding witnesses, Smith was not known to have been planning to write such a book, no one viewed him preparing. His witnesses make extraordinary claims to the point that they and their statements become untrustworthy. This is not an inclusive explanation why the Smith only theory is not strong, just some quick comments.

In both cases above, the use of KJV is a literary device. In the case of Spalding it is to influence an audience, but the intent is not to present a sacred text nor a literal history of ancient America. In the Smith only account, the use of KJV language is to persuade intended audience to accept Book of Mormon as authoritative from God and ancient.

#3 And of course we have the religious perspective that God wanted Smith to use KJV language because God knew intended audience would be influenced to accept it as sacred. God though apparently is not fully fluent in KJV english and makes some mistakes.

If you are using the last or # 3 explanation , you are invoking god into the argument. And I have the right to ask you what evidence do you have to employ God if no God has been established in the first place. IN addition, one doesn't need to employ the use of extraordinary supernatural claims to appreciate there are simplerl explanations for why KJV would have been used which the evidence does support. Explanations #1 and 2, provide sufficient explanation, without resorted to employing the supernatural and which account well for evidence of KJV in Book of Mormon.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

Wo..back up..you say "in the case of something given by God we assume"...what evidence do you have that is greater than mere assertion, that a God "gave" anything. Just because some individuals perceive a Bible connected to a God doesn't make it so. Just because a King James version of the Bible became popular based on a number of factors does not mean a God has any connection to that particular translation or the language used..in this case middle english.

If God is ominpotent, then we can safely assume that God won't have a communication problem with anyone else. That is, we assert through God's omnipotence that he can communicate effectively because he not only knows how to communicate, but he can also predict his auience's response to that communication. However, there is a recognized limitation in this - not caused by God's omnipotence but cause by that audience. God we presume can communicate perfectly when his intended audience is his specific audience - which is to say that the communcation is perfect when it is directed to a single individual at a single point in time. Other's experiencing that communication will only resemble the intended audiece to a greater or lesser extent, and so can fail to understand the communication to a greater or lesser extent. Not because God failed to communicate to his intended audience, but rather because the actual audience can be different than the intended audience. (This isn't much different from how we view communication between non-omnipotent persons - we just allow that God's gap between an his intended audience and the real audience can be made non-existent when speaking to a specific person at a particular moment).

And from there you miss the point. There may well be reasons for God to use the KJV language which are related not to God, but to God's intended audience.

Occams Razor applies:

I think you are abusing Occam's Razor personally. Didn't you say a while ago that you generally don't like to use it? I think that Occam's Razor has a heyday with nonexistent hypothetical texts, don't you?

Truth is, the case isn't hardly as strong as you suggest it is - unless of course, you agree with all of the hypotheticals and unfalsifiable assertions ....

Personally, I think that the reasons which can be offered to the use of the King James Version text are reasonable and not difficult at all.

Now, please answer my question about the Dead Sea Scrolls translation which you seem to have neglected.

I did enjoy though the mind reading about why Smith included the King James language.

[Guest]

Can I ask why it is important that the KJV be the most correct. If the person can't read and understand Isaiah then what does it matter which version is used or which one God wants to use for an audience. For example, most read Isaiah 29 and see Sennacherib and the assault of 701 and what results from that, and some others read it and see Martin Harris. It seems like you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

[_marg]

]If God is ominpotent, then we can safely assume that God won't have a communication problem with anyone else. That is, we assert through God's omnipotence that he can communicate effectively because he not only knows how to communicate,...

.

Ben, I have no idea what you are arguing here. If you are not invoking God in your argumentation with me and if I point out that it looks like the reason the KJV ended up in the Book of Mormon was for literary device as per what I wrote above in suggested explanation #1 & #2 and you intend to argue for the Smith alone theory..then why would Smith use KJV english in the Book of Mormon? What is your explanation for that?

[_Gazelam]

I think we could learn something here if we were to place a call to Church Distribution and ask them what their most printed Bible is.

Last I heard, what with the Church being as global as it is now, the King James version is like 20% of what is distributed. Other languages use a different version unless I'm mistaken.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think we could learn something here if we were to place a call to Church Distribution and ask them what their most printed Bible is.

Last I heard, what with the Church being as global as it is now, the King James version is like 20% of what is distributed. Other languages use a different version unless I'm mistaken.

Gaz,

Do you consider the KJV to be the most accurate version? Just curious.

[_Ray A]

Gaz,

Do you consider the KJV to be the most accurate version? Just curious.

Yeah, "just curious", as if any of these mythical books are history. But you're so gullible you'd believe it.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

karl61 writes:

Can I ask why it is important that the KJV be the most correct. If the person can't read and understand Isaiah then what does it matter which version is used or which one God wants to use for an audience. For example, most read Isaiah 29 and see Sennacherib and the assault of 701 and what results from that, and some others read it and see Martin Harris. It seems like you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

I wouldn't assert that it is the most correct. It was, however, the only commonly available translation in America (and would remain that way for at least another 40 years If I recall correctly).