Adamic/KEP logical connection

Post by **_Sethbag** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:11 am

charity wrote:
asbestosman wrote:Speaking of temples, words, and expansions, I have one for you. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin being translated into--well, let's see what Daniel 5 says:

25 ¶ And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Perfect!

Charity, you don't seem to realize that you're actually supporting an argument that undercuts an apologetic approach to the KEP. It's the apologists who have suggested that it's absurd that Joseph Smith could have believed (or at least proposed, as if he believed) that a single Egyptian symbol could be expanded out into a signficantly longer and more complex English sentence. It's the critics who argue that this is exactly what the KEP show Joseph did.

This example from Daniel, and my three-syllable "Adamic" invocation example, both serve as counter-examples showing how Joseph Smith might well indeed have believed and proposed this very thing.

But hey, thanks for your support, however unwittingly given!

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:17 am

Joseph Smith VERY CLEARLY explained in the KEP how a single symbol was composed of several components each with their own meanings, to be expanded in translation by supplying a specified number of "parts of speech" in between. Oliver Cowdery also mentioned that sometimes a full sentence was derived from a single Book of Mormon character, and described both languages as "comprehensive". Frankly, the suggestion that the authors of the KEP would have had to be stupid to translate so few characters with so much English text is a tacit admission that the authors of the KEP were, in fact, stupid.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:18 am

Yeah. What he said. :-)

Post by **_charity** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 am

[quote="Sethbag"] You are relying on the KEP. I don't think Joseph "translated" the Book of Abraham at all. Anymore than he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:55 am

Yeah, I don't think he translated either of those works either. High five!

Post by **_cksalmon** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:03 am

charity wrote:
Sethbag wrote: You are relying on the KEP. I don't think Joseph "translated" the Book of Abraham at all. Anymore than he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

The quote feature notwithstanding, I think I agree with you that Joseph Smith didn't "translate" either document, by which I mean that I don't believe there was an originary source text for either. The lack of evidence seems to suggest as much, at any rate.

Seriously, Charity, I have a question for you. Is there another instance you can point to in which the "translation" (your quotation marks, I think) of a source text, other than those by Joseph Smith, involves the manifest and objective absence of said source text(s), such that one is necessarily obligated to place the notion of "translation" under, at least, partial erasure, or redefinition?

I suppose, for clarification, I should add: "an instance that you find personally compelling."

Curious.

CKS

Post by **_asbestosman** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:59 am

charity wrote:You are relying on the KEP. I don't think Joseph "translated" the Book of Abraham at all. Anymore than he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

That's fine, but the question Sethbag is addressing here is whether Joseph (and maybe the others involved with the KEP) thought that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham by giving the meaning for egyptian characters. The book of Daniel shows how a religious person can indeed assume that one word (or character) may translate into several words.

What you are addressing is whether or not that means the Book of Abraham is a fraud. I would say that while Daniel does support Sethbag's counter-criticism, it also shows how one might reasonably translate one word into many--at least in a religious context. Thus it seems that the Daniel example is a two-edged sword.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:23 am

So charity does this mean Joseph Smith lied?

He and the Church have maintained that he could and did "translate" ancieent documents.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:24 am

dartagnan wrote:So charity does this mean Joseph Smith lied?

He and the Church have maintained that he could and did "translate" ancieent documents.

Couldn't the translation have been similar to Daniel's translation of the writing on the wall?

Post by **_charity** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:34 am

cksalmon wrote:

Seriously, Charity, I have a question for you. Is there another instance you can point to in which the "translation" (your quotation marks, I think) of a source text, other than those by Joseph Smith, involves the manifest and objective absence of said source text(s), such that one is necessarily obligated to place the notion of "translation" under, at least, partial erasure, or redefinition?

I suppose, for clarification, I should add: "an instance that you find personally compelling."

Curious.

CKS

I don't know of any. I think Joseph's calling and gift were unique.