I am sure this is not a new mopologetic issue, but it is new to me.
Look it up.
1828 Webster dictionary says one of the legitimate definitions of "translate" is "change" and all the others include somehow interpretation or even removing one authority from one area to another.
This is mfbukowski, from mddb. Apparently based on this:
Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary shows several definitions of the transitive verb translate, two of which are instructive in connection with Joseph’s statement that he translated “by the gift and power of God”:
5. To change.
6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.
...Question: Did Joseph Smith indeed “translate” the Bible as the titles “New Translation” and “Joseph Smith Translation” suggest?
Answers: (1) Yes, when Noah Webster’s 1828 definitions of translate involving the present infinitives “to change” and “to interpret” are acknowledged as legitimate aspects of the definition of translate. (2) No, when Noah Webster’s 1828 definitions of translate mean “to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.” http://www.bmaf.org/node/434
What is going on in people's minds that they have to descend to this level of nonsense to justify their (thoroughly discredited) concepts?
Sometimes technical terms don't really mean what a lot of people think they might mean. It can take a little while to explain, for example, that relativity doesn't mean that everything is relative.
Other times the only reason to be pedantic about definitions is to execute a bait-and-switch, where you say something that sounds clear and wonderful, and then back off from having to back it up, by redefining it to mean something obscure and trivial.
If you're doing that bait-and-switch thing, then it helps to try to make out as though you're doing the first thing, and explaining a sophisticated technical term to ignorant laypeople. It sounds better than just saying, "Well, actually, I only really meant ...". If you're smooth enough, and lucky enough, you might be able to promise gold, deliver fool's gold, and have people thank you for telling them all about iron pyrite.
Perhaps they meant he changed the expectation that he would actually translate the mysterious writing and just inserted a story he made up pretending it was a true translation. That would be a real switcheroo to what his followers thought he was doing. He had them bamboozled so he would change things up.
Did Bukowski also note that "translate" has a meaning "moving ... without rotating or resizing"?
Perhaps he can also make use of that definition to show how unreasonable critics are.
ETA: How nice of him to include the reference to "the present infinitives". Perhaps it was only when Joseph and followers used the present infinitive of "translate" that they meant "change". Pedantic critics could perhaps use this idea as a club to beat him with. Our little penguin could no doubt do much better than that.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Great find Marcus. Or course as we all know, the problem isn’t that the incorrect definition and idea was/is held by critics.
The problem is that Joseph and every other subsequent prophet also held the wrong idea about what was happening.
It’s indistinguishable from a fraud. It’s no more trustworthy or credible than any of L Ron Hubbard’s writings. You’re welcome to believe them if you want, and many Mormons and Scientologists do. But as Dan McClellan says, that’s not where the data lead you.
Great find Marcus. Or course as we all know, the problem isn’t that the incorrect definition and idea was/is held by critics.
The problem is that Joseph and every other subsequent prophet also held the wrong idea about what was happening.
It’s indistinguishable from a fraud. It’s no more trustworthy or credible than any of L Ron Hubbard’s writings. You’re welcome to believe them if you want, and many Mormons and Scientologists do. But as Dan McClellan says, that’s not where the data lead you.
