John Gee, Historian

[_CaliforniaKid]

If anyone would wish to review a more full discussion of the issue than has been presented, please look here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf

I think if you look into the issues and educate yourself, you'll see that the idea being fronted that the KJV translators made a mistake is actually pretty silly. The issue is more complex than that and I believe CaliforniaKid is trying to mislead people with his statement that we must radically change how this verse was rendered in the KJV in English because "It's a word-for-word translation ERROR". That is factually dishonest. Even ancient Greek translators had difficulties with this and translations of the Septuagint over the centuries included the treatment as the one the KJV uses in an attempt to translate this verse.

If that's what you got out of this, then I recommend the following: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

Whoa... deja vu.

[_Tobin]

1) The KJV translation doesn't maintain the Jewish poetic prose, so it is in error.

You didn't read very carefully. The KJV DOES maintain the poetic structure; I was explaining why the image that the KJV uses is incongruous with the image and why we could tell that the KJV didn't know what the Hebrew says. It is not a word-for-word translation; it is an incorrect reading and an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew. The Book of Mormon shares that error, and any trained text critic will tell you that shared errors are clear sign of a textual relationship.

Actually, what I was pointing out is it doesn't need to because it is an English translation. Whether it does or not by happenstance isn't an error.

My response: The KJV is an ENGLISH word-for-word translation. It isn't REQUIRED to maintain the the Jewish poetic prose. That is why this criticism of yours is nonsense and you have yet to demonstrate any error in the translation.

You are misreading again. The KJV is NOT a word for word translation. That is the big clue. It is a paraphrase, and a misunderstood paraphrase. The problem is not that both the Book of Mormon and the KJV have a word-for-word translation but that they both paraphrase with the exact same words which reflect a wrong understanding of the Hebrew. The source for the KJV's incorrect paraphrase is the Vulgate (I gave you the background for that). What is the source of the Book of Mormon's absolutely identically wrong paraphrase?

It isn't as simple as that and that doesn't change the fact the KJB is a word-for-word translation. In cases in which it relied on the Vulgate, it is a word-for-word translation using that as the source. Now, I'll concede as far as the Vulgate paraphrases, then I'll agree the KJV paraphrases. You have to bear in mind the KJB scholars had to often rely on the Vulgate for their understanding of the Hebrew Old Testament texts.

2) The KJV uses the phrase "and upon all pleasant pictures", which you state is an error and should have been translated "every finely-wrought craft".

That is one possible translation that reflects what the Hebrew says. The one the KJV and Book of Mormon have, however, is NOT a possible translation that reflects what the Hebrew says.

Actually, versions of the Septuagint do the same thing, so it seems like it is very possible. And the Book of Mormon is different from the KJB in an important way. It adds a phrase "And upon all the ships of the sea". The source of the supposed Book of Mormon text is the Egyptian Brass Plates.

My response: The exact word here is literally translated "pictures". They certainly aren't using the word CRAFT here. Again, you state that translation is in error, because it isn't a meaning-for-meaning translation and is instead a word-for-word translation (which it is).

Again it is not a word for word translation. It is simply nonsense.

So you say. What is it then?

...these are NOT errors because they are archaic English word-for-word translations. It is a misconception that the KJV translators were trying to make modern English meaning-for-meaning translation (including preserving the Jewish prose). That is the ONLY error here.

You're stating the wrong idea over and over, so out of my kindness I'll just correct it again: This is not a case of two texts literally translating the Hebrew; it is a two texts NOT translating translating literally—that is the whole point—and not translating literally in exactly the same way. The fact that they are both are also wrong is secondary; the point is that they are both wrong in exactly the same way. This is not the case of two texts doing a variant reading of the Hebrew; it is the case of two texts not know what the Hebrew says reflecting that ignorance with the same phrase. The KJV people used the Vulgate to fudge it; what did Joseph Smith/Moroni/Holy Ghost/God use?

ROFL. They didn't use the Vulgate to "fudge it". As I've explained, the used the Vulgate for insight into the Hebrew Old Testament. And as I've also pointed out, many versions of the Septuagint magically do the same thing. Are you going to claim the Greeks also used the Vulgate to "fudge it"?

If you persist in misrepresenting the nature of the problem only to support your view, I can only conclude that you are willingly doing so.

How am I misrepresenting things exactly? I think I've been very concerned about presenting the facts as accurately as possible.

[_Tobin]

If that's what you got out of this, then I recommend the following: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

Whoa... deja vu.

It wasn't funny the first time and repeating it doesn't make it funny. When you wish to address what I've said instead of cast aspersions, let me know.

[_Symmachus]

Tobin,

I don't know why you persist in telling me that these are word for word translations. You speak with such great authority, but can you even read these languages? I can. The phrase "of all pleasant pictures" is not a word for word translation of "quod pulchrum visu est" ("that which is beautiful to look at"). It is at best a paraphrase; it looks like the sort of thing a first year Latin student would do on an exam (of which I have graded hundreds), so yes, "fudging" is the right word in my view.

And I already gave you above what the word for word translation of the Hebrew would be ("finely wrought craft" or "finely-wrought ships" or even just "pretty ships" would get closer to the Hebrew than either the KJV or Book of Mormon), and you even quoted it back to me, so I don't know why you are asking for it again. Are you drunk maybe?

There are two half-lines here, and you've confused them. The Septuagint's "all the ships of the sea" (the first half line) is treating "Tarshish" as if it were "thalassa," as I already explained, and the significance of that is that it shows Smith/God/Moroni/Ghost didn't understand that the two phrases "the ships of the sea" and "the ships of Tarshish" both come from the same Hebrew half-line. You seem to have the same problem. He/they simply added the Septuagint variant, the knowledge of which was available in the margins of Bibles available to Joseph Smith (I already linked to that). That suggests that he is looking at other texts. But in any case that is just a bonus, and in this half-line the Vulgate isn't relevant, so you're suggestion that my argument implies that Greek translator "magically" had the same reading shows that you don't understand the argument and that these half-lines aren't interchangeable.

The Septuagint does translate "3al kol-sekhiyyot ha-7emdah" in the second half-line relatively accurately ("epi pasan thean ploiwn kallous" = lit. "against every display of ships of beauty"). It is that half-line that the Vulgate (and then the KJV) got wrong. The Vulgate translates it as "that which is beautiful to look at," and the KJV takes the Latin of the Vulgate as "all pleasant pictures," which the Book of Mormon follows identically. There is nothing about ships in either the Vulgate, the KJV, or the Book of Mormon's treatment of this half-line, and the last two have paraphrased the Latin, which has nothing at all about "pleasant pictures"--unless you're fudging it, of course. When the Book of Mormon "restores" the ships, it does so in the wrong place. I'd be almost impressed if Smith had added "all the ships of the sea" in place of "all pleasant pictures" in the second half-line, but he didn't. He put it before the first half-line.

Dana Pike's argument and mine agree on all points but one--the role of faith--and you quote back his article to me and others (which I linked to in the first place) as if it were a refutation. It is a confirmation.

Yet again, you take two contradictory positions. Either you agree with Pike and me (and just about everyone else) about this evidence, or you don't. You can't agree with one view of the evidence and not the other, because they are both the same. The only difference is that Pike sees faith as the way out of the quandary, and I don't, but that's a question of interpretation, not of facts.

I am done talking about the facts with you, because you are either unable or unwilling to understand them. Feel free to read Pike's article, since he and I have the same position regarding the facts.

The only thing of any sense you said:

Whether it does or not by happenstance isn't an error.

Ok. You are free to think that it is happenstance, since that is not a dispute over facts (which only you dispute) but over interpretation. I am persuaded by this evidence, alongside all kinds of other evidence, that this is a case of translation error being perpetuated by someone who doesn't understand the history of the text he's dealing with.

Is it an astonishing coincidence that both the Book of Mormon and the KJV contain an identically-worded misreading of the Hebrew text? It's certainly possible, but it seems not very probable to me. You no doubt disagree.

[Guest]

I don't know why you persist in telling me that these are word for word translations. You speak with such great authority, but can you even read these languages? I can. The phrase "of all pleasant pictures" is not a word for word translation of "quod pulchrum visu est" ("that which is beautiful to look at"). It is at best a paraphrase; it looks like the sort of thing a first year Latin student would do on an exam (of which I have graded hundreds), so yes, "fudging" is the right word in my view.

No. I do not read or speak these languages and must rely on what scholars have said on the topic. Obviously you didn't read the pdf I linked. If you had, you would know there are versions of in Greek that also does this "fudging" and I seriously doubt they used Latin in their translations.

And I already gave you above what the word for word translation of the Hebrew would be ("finely wrought craft" or "finely-wrought ships" or even just "pretty ships" would get closer to the Hebrew than either the KJV or Book of Mormon), and you even quoted it back to me, so I don't know why you are asking for it again. Are you drunk maybe?

I am not drunk. And the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt actually literally means pictures, while a cognate is not unknown and used for an image or figure in other renderings used elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is this cognate with śĕkîyôt that causes you to state it is intended to MEAN ship instead of the literal translation of pictures. However, as I've already pointed out, this not the word translated into Latin, versions in Greek, and obviously the KJV. You claim the literal word translation doesn't preserve how it was meant and is an error. As I've pointed out, that isn't how the KJB was translated.

There are two half-lines here, and you've confused them. The Septuagint's "all the ships of the sea" (the first half line) is treating "Tarshish" as if it were "thalassa," as I already explained, and the significance of that is that it shows Smith/God/Moroni/Ghost didn't understand that the two phrases "the ships of the sea" and "the ships of Tarshish" both come from the same Hebrew half-line. You seem to have the same problem. He/they simply added the Septuagint variant, the knowledge of which was available in the margins of Bibles available to Joseph Smith (I already linked to that). That suggests that he is looking at other texts. But in any case that is just a bonus, and in this half-line the Vulgate isn't relevant, so you're suggestion that my argument implies that Greek translator "magically" had the same reading shows that you don't understand the argument and that these half-lines aren't interchangeable.

Again, if you read the pdf, you'd know there are other versions in Greek. Some of these translations treat this similarly to the Vulgate and the KJB.

The Septuagint does translate "3al kol-sekhiyyot ha-7emdah" in the second half-line relatively accurately ("epi pasan thean ploiwn kallous" = lit. "against every display of ships of beauty"). It is that half-line that the Vulgate (and then the KJV) got wrong. The Vulgate translates it as "that which is beautiful to look at," and the KJV takes the Latin of the Vulgate as "all pleasant pictures," which the Book of Mormon follows identically. There is nothing about ships in either the Vulgate, the KJV, or the Book of Mormon's treatment of this half-line, and the last two have paraphrased the Latin, which has nothing at all about "pleasant pictures"--unless you're fudging it, of course. When the Book of Mormon "restores" the ships, it does so in the wrong place. I'd be almost impressed if Smith had added "all the ships of the sea" in place of "all pleasant pictures" in the second half-line, but he didn't. He put it before the first half-line.

Again, if you read the pdf, you'd know there is NO definitive official translation in Greek. I'd encourage you the read the pdf.

Dana Pike's argument and mine agree on all points but one--the role of faith--and you quote back his article to me and others (which I linked to in the first place) as if it were a refutation. It is a confirmation.

You'll have to explain that.

Yet again, you take two contradictory positions. Either you agree with Pike and me (and just about everyone else) about this evidence, or you don't. You can't agree with one view of the evidence and not the other, because they are both the same. The only difference is that Pike sees faith as the way out of the quandary, and I don't, but that's a question of interpretation, not of facts.

Again, it isn't that simple. The fact of the matter is we are dealing with multiple potential sources and versions here. We have the MT and other versions of the Hebrew Old Testament which render this differently in Hebrew. The other potential source material is where the Book of Mormon got it from - the Brass Plates which was written in ancient Egyptian.

I am done talking about the facts with you, because you are either unable or unwilling to understand them. Feel free to read Pike's article, since he and I have the same position regarding the facts.

If only you were dealing with the facts and not ignoring them, this would be much easier to resolve.

The only thing of any sense you said:

Whether it does or not by happenstance isn't an error.

Ok. You are free to think that it is happenstance, since that is not a dispute over facts (which only you dispute) but over interpretation. I am persuaded by this evidence, alongside all kinds of other evidence, that this is a case of translation error being perpetuated by someone who doesn't understand the history of the text he's dealing with.

Is it an astonishing coincidence that both the Book of Mormon and the KJV contain an identically-worded misreading of the Hebrew text? It's certainly possible, but it seems not very probable to me. You no doubt disagree.

And as I've said, it isn't as simple as you pretend. We are dealing with multiple translations and ways of approaching a translation. For example, is it literal? Is it a paraphrase? I reject the notions you are fronting that there is only one correct way to translate that captures everything found in the source documents or what the author intended. In fact, it isn't even clear if your version is any better than what appears in the Vulgate, versions in Greek, the KJB and Book of Mormon that diverge from what you claim is the correct version.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I am not drunk. And the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt actually literally means pictures (an image or figure are other renderings) which is used elsewhere in the Old Testament that way.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

This feminine plural noun [the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt] occurs only once in the Masoretic Text, here in Isaiah 2:16b. . . . the phrase in Isaiah 2:16b literally reads, “and against/upon all ships of pleasantness/desirableness/beauty.”

[_Tobin]

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

READ THE PDF and stop being an ignoramus. From the PDF, "However, later ancient Greek translations of this passage differ from the Septuagint. For example, Aquila rendered Isaiah 2:16b as “upon all views of pleasantness/desirable views” (epi pasas opseis tēs epithumias). Symmachus and the kaige-Theodotion text similarly render the phrase as “upon all desirable views” (kai epi pasas theas epithumētas).44 These alternative Greek translations of the Hebrew text of this phrase suggest that the translators were unsure of what the unique Hebrew term śĕkîyôt in verse 16b meant."

Obviously, they did render it differently in these cases. So much for your denials.

[_Chap]

I am not drunk. And the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt actually literally means pictures (an image or figure are other renderings) which is used elsewhere in the Old Testament that way.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

This feminine plural noun [the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt] occurs only once in the Masoretic Text, here in Isaiah 2:16b. . . . the phrase in Isaiah 2:16b literally reads, “and against/upon all ships of pleasantness/desirableness/beauty.”

Tobin is alas operating at full brain-power.

And in that state, he both urges you to read the Pike and Seely article (which makes it plain that śĕkîyôt is a hapax legomenon in the Masoretic text, that does not 'literally mean pictures'), and insults you for saying just what the article says.

I almost wish he was drunk. It would be some kind of excuse ...

Wow! Now we have:

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

READ THE PDF and stop being an ignoramus. From the PDF, "However, later ancient Greek translations of this passage differ from the Septuagint. For example, Aquila rendered Isaiah 2:16b as “upon all views of pleasantness/desirable views” (epi pasas opseis tēs epithumias). Symmachus and the kaige-Theodotion text similarly render the phrase as “upon all desirable views” (kai epi pasas theas epithumētas).44 These alternative Greek translations of the Hebrew text of this phrase suggest that the translators were unsure of what the unique Hebrew term śĕkîyôt in verse 16b meant."

Obviously, they did render it differently in these cases. So much for your denials.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does this disprove what you said, i.e. that śĕkîyôt does not "actually literally means pictures" and is NOT is "used elsewhere in the Old Testament that way"?

It just shows (surprise!) that those who translated the Hebrew into Greek "were unsure of what the unique Hebrew term śĕkîyôt in verse 16b meant."

Hey Tobin! "Unique" is another way of saying hapax legomenon - Gettit? Like NOT "used elsewhere in the Old Testament".

[Guest]

Tobin,

It only appears complicated to you because you don't understand the meaning of the terms you are using.

1. There are variant readings in different manuscripts of the Septuagint; but there are not different Septuagints. It is a misnomer to speak of different versions.

There is no variant reading for this particular passage, so the point about the different "versions" that you are trying to make is irrelevant. There are no variant readings of this passage in the Septuagint manuscripts.

2. The Septuagint is a translation from Greek, but not all translations from Greek are the Septuagint.

Aquila and Symmachus, for example, made their own Greek versions (revisions) in the late second century AD, which contribute to the confusing translation of the Vulgate, but they are NOT part of the manuscript tradition of the Septuagint. What they give us are the opinions of translators/revisers in the 2nd century AD. Symmachus's translation we have only in parts and it is particularly free and liberal, and aims for stylistic effect and thus is not always very useful; Aquila is quite the opposite, and he is literal that he frequently will use ungrammatical and even non-sensical Greek (using the preposition "syn," which means "with," to mark the direct object; this mirrors Hebrew syntax but mangles the Greek beyond understanding unless you already know the Hebrew). Theodotion, probably contemporary but possibly later, may have been revising the Septuagint or may have been making his own translation. Since the Septuagint is NOT relevant to the translation of "pictures" vs. "ships," these are the only Greek versions you can be referring to (but they are not different Septuagints; they are different translations entirely), because that is what we have. The most you can say about them is that they were unclear how to translate sekhiyyot (most likely reason is textual corruption, since the "sin" of sekhiyyot was probably confused for an "ayin," which is how to spell the word for "boats" in Hebrew). So was Jerome, who followed them in many respects and admired some of their work. So were the KJV translators, who relied on Jerome frequently. But since they are also much later than the Book of Mormon (800+ years), and two are explicitly independent productions and not connected to the Septuagint, there is no reason to privilege those texts over both the Masoretic Text AND the Septuagint (which both agree on the "ships") without a good reason. What is that good reason for you?

In sum, the other Greek versions are irrelevant for this verse. They might explain Jerome's paraphrase, but they do not preserve an ancient reading, certainly not one that is more ancient than both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. They give us a 2nd century view of what that Hebrew word may have seemed to mean to translators who had very, very different aims.

3. You are mistaken on sikhiyyot, which is a hapax and thus does not occur anywhere else at all in the MT, let alone with the meaning "pictures" (see also p. 18, and note 32 on p. 69) of the Pike article you keep insisting I haven't read). "Pictures" is a paraphrase of Jerome's Latin, in turn influenced by Symmachus or Aquila, neither of whom—to repeat—are "versions" of the Septuagint.

4. I refer you to pp. 24-25 of the Pike article, which basically summarizes what I've already said—the Hebrew says ships, the Septuagint and the MT agree on that, and appealing to some lost variant for which we have no evidence whatsoever is misguided, and indeed they caution LDS in the last paragraph from accepting those arguments—but ultimately they say the source of the third element in what should be a two-part parallelism depends on one's faith. Faithful people think it's from the Holy Ghost; people who don't have faith in the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon's origins will not accept that (as the authors themselves admit).

[_Chap]

Teaching is an addiction, isn't it Symmachus?

Just one more leetle explanation, then I'll stop. This time, he's bound to get it.

I know the feeling. I am a sufferer myself.

But "chasing the dragon panda" will take everything you've got, and give you nothing in return.