logo Sign In

RicOlie_2

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Jun-2013
Last activity
15-Jul-2025
Posts
5,622

Post History

Post
#689741
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

darth_ender said:

I see what you are saying.  I think perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the perfection of the translation.  For instance, I am assisting with the translation of the Dejarik rules.  Bewy translated things very literally at times.  I am trying to make it more accessible to an English reader.  If it's truly "faithful," does that preclude the use of words and phrases that would be understandable to a modern English reader?  I think not.  Even the NAB has to make such "compromises" for the sake of clarity.  Let me give another example.  In Spanish, the word for dream is "sueno' (with a ~ over the n).  If I'm sleepy, I say, "Tengo sueno," which literally means, "I have a dream."  If I were to translate a Spanish book faithfully, does that mean I have to translate this phrase so it sounds like Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking?  Or would it be better to translate it as, "I'm sleepy"?

That's a good point. I have another question though. If the Nephites et al. named New World animals after Old World animals, rather than giving them new names (e.g. tapirs, deer, bison), would it not have made more sense for Joseph Smith to give them their proper English names in his translation, especially if his translational work was divinely inspired? Of course, that wouldn't be necessary, but why would he render some words into the more familiar English terms, but retain the more literal translations for other words?

EDIT: Assuming that that is your understanding of the seemingly anachronistic animals. If not, then I would like to ask instead, what do you think best explains the appearance of Old World animals in texts written in the New World?

I am sure there are other anachronisms you may come across, many far more confusing than the use of the term "Jew."  For instance, in 2 Nephi the title "Christ" is used for the first time, which is the Greek word for "anointed."  But they are speaking Hebrew or a similar dialect.  Confusing, right?  Well, if you want an answer to that, I can discuss it further, but I'm definitely pretty busy today.  In any case, for a history of the word Jew, look at this wiki article.

It was while after reading the chapter that first names him (2 Nephi 25) that I asked my question. I didn't have a problem with "Christ" since it is more or less synonymous with "Messiah" and has since been incorporated into the English language. As for the term "Jew," I was under the impression that the word now translated as "Jew" only came into use in the second century B.C., but that was only when it was first used to describe the Jewish religion and the faithful of Israel as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term "Jew" technically didn't even come around till English existed.  But if we look at the etymology of the word, there are several synonyms in different languages, and other words mean exactly the same thing: of the Tribe of Judah.

It makes sense in the text, in that case.

Wish I had more time.

 No, you answered my question. :)

Post
#689718
Topic
What's the Weather Like Where You Live?
Time

Where I am, it warmed up overnight to -17°C, with the windchill/humidity-chill making it feel like -25°C. It's been snowing on and off for the past couple days and it's very cloudy and white looking.

I would appreciate it if you posted the temperature in degree Celsius, because I don't read Fahrenheit. ;) I can, however, convert between the two.

For those who don't read Celsius, here's an equation that will allow you to figure it out in case you can't be bothered to Google a temperature converter:

°F = 9/5(°C) + 32

and for when you're converting to Celsius for my benefit, use this equation:

°C = 5/9 (°F - 32)

Post
#689711
Topic
The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread
Time

That goes against Catholic teaching, generalfrevious. Sex is good, but it is abused. If sex was evil, and the first generation of human beings agreed with that and didn't have sex, the human species would be extinct and we wouldn't be here. Sexual urges are normal and are not bad themselves, rather, it is what is done with them that is good or bad.

Post
#689708
Topic
The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread
Time

I partly agree with that, but what I meant was that contraception itself doesn't create health issues. I think it's the sex-saturated culture of ours that has led to most abortions. We live in a world where sex is viewed as a necessary aspect of life and life has little value if it belongs to someone who is suffering or is too small and stupid to care whether or not it is taken from them.

Most people would disagree, and rather strongly, about what I just wrote, but I think it is at the base of many (but not necessarily most) problems today.

Post
#689697
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

Sounds good. To clarify and sum up what I'm getting at, would it be correct to say the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible if the Book of Mormon isn't a perfect translation either? It was translated only once, but Joseph Smith wasn't entirely faithful to the text if it was a translation. The example I gave was the word "Jew" which couldn't have been in the original books of Nephi if they were as old as they are believed to be by the LDS.

Post
#689648
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

In this article, the author states:

"Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power."

Do you agree with that statement? If so, what is your response to the many anachronisms contained within the Book of Mormon which can only be explained (assuming Mormonism is correct, of course) on the assumption that Joseph Smith (or in some cases, the original authors) used words more familiar to him (/them). For example: I am reading 2 Nephi which uses the word "Jew." As far as I am aware, this word came into use no earlier than the second century B.C. and is therefore an anachronism. If Joseph Smith replaced words and used phrasing not actually present in the original text, but slightly altered to closer match familiar phrasing in the KJV, can the Book of Mormon truly be called more correct than the Bible?

I may be misunderstanding the LDS beliefs regarding the correctness of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, but if not, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think this would compromise your beliefs in any way, of course, but I'm just curious to know how you think the Book of Mormon compares in correctness to a translation like the New American Bible (NAB) which used the oldest texts available for translation, and retained the closest possible wording to the original manuscripts.

Sorry about the weird highlighting. I copied the quote and messed the whole thing up.