DiscussMormonism.com

There is obviously a general misunderstanding of a typical translation process because most people do not deal with translations. When a document is translated from one language to another, it bears the mark of that translator. I have worked extensively with translators for the last 7 years. Each of them I could tell with certainty whom it was that translated a document. This is because each of them subconsciously uses non-contextual words entirely at their preference. Therefore if a document is translated by numerous translators a wordprint analysis would show there were numerous translators. On the other hand if a document was translated by a single translator a wordprint analysis would show a single translator.

The original writer could be recognized by textual words that are not discretionary to the translator, but the not by the non-contextual words, as they would be unique to the translator.

thanks,
sr1030

sr1030 wrote:There is obviously a general misunderstanding of a typical translation process because most people do not deal with translations. When a document is translated from one language to another, it bears the mark of that translator. I have worked extensively with translators for the last 7 years. Each of them I could tell with certainty whom it was that translated a document. This is because each of them subconsciously uses non-contextual words entirely at their preference. Therefore if a document is translated by numerous translators a wordprint analysis would show there were numerous translators. On the other hand if a document was translated by a single translator a wordprint analysis would show a single translator.

The original writer could be recognized by textual words that are not discretionary to the translator, but the not by the non-contextual words, as they would be unique to the translator.

Have you seen the Jockers et all study, sr1030?

Welcome to the board. :-)

sr1030 wrote:There is obviously a general misunderstanding of a typical translation process because most people do not deal with translations. When a document is translated from one language to another, it bears the mark of that translator. I have worked extensively with translators for the last 7 years. Each of them I could tell with certainty whom it was that translated a document. This is because each of them subconsciously uses non-contextual words entirely at their preference. Therefore if a document is translated by numerous translators a wordprint analysis would show there were numerous translators. On the other hand if a document was translated by a single translator a wordprint analysis would show a single translator.

The original writer could be recognized by textual words that are not discretionary to the translator, but the not by the non-contextual words, as they would be unique to the translator.

thanks,
sr1030

Holy cow, blast from the past!

Harmony wrote:

Have you seen the Jockers et all study, sr1030?

Welcome to the board. :-)

I have just now reviewed it, but not in detail. I will continue to review. Thanks for the tip. I have not been keeping up with the latest information on Mormon history for quite some time.

While I agree with their methodology at first glance, I am not taking that approach. They are attempting to identify a particular Author(s) and I will show, with the help of professional translators, that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not translated by a single author, and evidence, not proof, that neither were translated documents at all from a language that uses symbols to represent themes and contain no non-textual words.

Obviously Joseph Smith, if he were the translator, had the prerogative to use his own words in the Book of Mormon. This is evident by the use of words contemporary to the Book of Mormon such as "adieu". Therefore if he were the only translator, as is claimed, the Book of Mormon would show a single translator based on his usage of the non-contextual words of his choice and familiarity.

Thanks for the welcome.
sr

sr1030 wrote:

Harmony wrote:

Have you seen the Jockers et all study, sr1030?

Welcome to the board. :-)

I have just now reviewed it, but not in detail. I will continue to review. Thanks for the tip. I have not been keeping up with the latest information on Mormon history for quite some time.

While I agree with their methodology at first glance, I am not taking that approach. They are attempting to identify a particular Author(s) and I will show, with the help of professional translators, that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not translated by a single author, and evidence, not proof, that neither were translated documents at all from a language that uses symbols to represent themes and contain no non-textual words.

Obviously Joseph Smith, if he were the translator, had the prerogative to use his own words in the Book of Mormon. This is evident by the use of words contemporary to the Book of Mormon such as "adieu". Therefore if he were the only translator, as is claimed, the Book of Mormon would show a single translator based on his usage of the non-contextual words of his choice and familiarity.

Thanks for the welcome.
sr

sr,

I look forward to your contributions.

The apologists have all sorts of different flavors for "translation". Why, it was just this month (August 6) that we learned when Joseph Smith and scribes used the word translate with regards to having received papyri with Egyptian characters written on it and they were working to produce the Book of Abraham, they did not mean they were translating those Egyptian characters on the papyri into a corresponding English text. That's why we should not, we were told, expect that the English translation that Egyptologists give those Egyptian characters on the papyri result in the Book of Abraham (and indeed, they do not, instead it yields the Hor Breathing Permit)

It's just like when Joseph Smith and scribes used the word 'Egyptian' as in Egyptian Alphabet and Egyptian Grammar, they did not (we were told) intend an Alphabet or Grammar that was Egyptian. See what a marvelous work and a wonder it is? (I think for me, it's more the wonder part than the marvelous work part.)

Just wait until you ask a paradoxical question about LDS 'doctrine'? You see, there is no such thing as 'doctrine', at least not if the only answers would be illogical or no answer could address all of the concerns implicated by the question.

The funnest parts though are the concepts of Internet Mormons and Cafeteria Mormons. "You can't always get what you want, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need."

Welcome to Wonderland. You've dropped down the rabbit hole, and now logic is only an illusion.

sock puppet wrote:The apologists have all sorts of different flavors for "translation". Why, it was just this month (August 6) that we learned when Joseph Smith and scribes used the word translate with regards to having received papyri with Egyptian characters written on it and they were working to produce the Book of Abraham, they did not mean they were translating those Egyptian characters on the papyri into a corresponding English text.

I am quite sure LDS Apoligists can be very creative in defending their faith. In fact I would venture to guess they already know that it would be impossible for Joseph Smith to have translated the Book of Mormon.

thanks,
sr

"Obviously Joseph Smith, if he were the translator, had the prerogative to use his own words in the Book of Mormon."

This does not square with 'words appeared, were read back and only if correct would the next words appear' as the method described of the words appearing from God on the magic peepstone.

Joseph wrote:
This does not square with 'words appeared, were read back and only if correct would the next words appear' as the method described of the words appearing from God on the magic peepstone.

What is your point? If I don't believe Joseph Smith when he stated he translated the Book of Mormon, why would I believe the process?

The bottom line is that the Book of Mormon contained certain contemporary words. If the Book of Mormon were translated in any fashion it would bear the mark of the translator.

thanks,
sr

sr1030 wrote:In fact I would venture to guess they already know that it would be impossible for Joseph Smith to have translated the Book of Mormon.

A bold statement, to say the least.

Why is it impossible for Joseph Smith to have translated the Book of Mormon?

1030 wrote: "If the Book of Mormon were translated in any fashion it would bear the mark of the translator."

Sorry guy but the way Joseph is described as 'translating' doesn't allow for this. God made the words appear in English. Joseph read them as they appeared to the scribe who wrote them. The scribe read them back and only after they were correct would new words appear on the magic peepstone.

If God put them there and the next words did not appear until the writing was 'correct' where is the leeway for Joseph to add his own words?

Either someone is wrong in describing the process or it didn't happen like that.