new German BoM translation
John S.Colton
I was reading some stuff at FARMS, and came across this article:
"Das Buch Mormon: The German Translation of the Book of Mormon", by
Gilbert W. Scharffs.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=3D295&table=3Djbms
I was surprised to read that a new German translation of the BoM is in
the works:
"Between 1974 and 1979 the present edition was prepared and translated
by Immo Luschin. At the moment, since this text is so very
controversial in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, a new translation
is in progress as authorized by the First Presidency."
I know there are a lot of German speakers here-- does anyone know why
he says that the Luschin translation "is so very controversial"? I
didn't find anyone who considered it particularly controversial when I
was a missionary, although I had heard that some members had
difficulties with the re-wording of the sacrament prayers when it came
out.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:=20
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Linards Ticmanis
> I know there are a lot of German speakers here-- does anyone know why
> he says that the Luschin translation "is so very controversial"? I
> didn't find anyone who considered it particularly controversial when I
> was a missionary, although I had heard that some members had
> difficulties with the re-wording of the sacrament prayers when it came
> out.
The translation is simply bad beyond belief from a literary and
stylistic point of view. I was given a copy by missionaries about 10
years ago and I had to keep myself from laughing at the extremely
miserable German used in the translation. Just one example is the
translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
completely silly in many places. Also the translation of "Gentiles" as
"Others" and many more such things sound ridiculous. The English BoM is
rambling and formless in many places but it has a kind of uncouth charm
-- the German one is simply somebody trying to sound way more important
than his abilities allow.
I have never read the old John Taylor translation, but I understand that
it largely was modelled on the Luther Bible.
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
John Taber
>
> I know there are a lot of German speakers here-- does anyone know why
> he says that the Luschin translation "is so very controversial"? I
> didn't find anyone who considered it particularly controversial when I
> was a missionary, although I had heard that some members had
> difficulties with the re-wording of the sacrament prayers when it came
> out.
Every language will eventually get a translation based on the 1981
edition in English. I'm surprised German hasn't already - Italian got
one several years ago and French now has the full triple combination.
Robert Perkins
<colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote:
>I know there are a lot of German speakers here-- does anyone know why
>he says that the Luschin translation "is so very controversial"?
On my mission in 89-90 in Switzerland, there were... pockets... of
dissension about the Luschin translation, which took the form of
people who refused to use it, and drew conclusions about doctrines
from the older translations which didn't match what one can draw from
the English translation.
But, bear in mind that I'm talking about two incidents in two lessons
in two places in two years, out of all the time I spent there. In one
case, the participant in the Sunday School lesson made a statement,
read a scripture from the older translation to refute a conclusion
people were drawing from the new one, whereupon a second participant
noted that the new translation agreed with the English, and the old
one did not. In that case, the person who favored the old translation
stuck to his guns and the teacher moved on to the next point.
I don't think that by 1990 it was that controversial. The singular
common complaint about the Luschin translation I heard was that it
didn't have "und es begab sich" abbreviated as "[]".
Rob, who thought at the beginning of his mission that the older
translation was easier to read, but at the end, it was the newer one
which was easier
Robert Perkins
<ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>Just one example is the
>translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
>high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
>completely silly in many places.
Well for the record, that's kind of the way "And it came to pass"
comes across in modern English. And I'm pretty sure that "es begab
sich" is found in similar contexts in the German bibles for sale these
days.
> Also the translation of "Gentiles" as
>"Others" and many more such things sound ridiculous.
Coulda sworn that was the word given in the Einheitsuebersetzung. Then
again, mine fell apart long before I could get it home. My
Langenscheidts Taschenwoerterbuch offers "der Nichtjude" and "der
Heide" as translations for "Gentile". Which is correct in the context?
> The English BoM is
>rambling and formless in many places but it has a kind of uncouth charm
>-- the German one is simply somebody trying to sound way more important
>than his abilities allow.
I doubt the Church will see an increase in convert baptisms in Germany
just because the translation gets redone.
Rob
JamesB
such an important book a little more...ummm...inspired? The story of the
German translation makes it sound like the Book of Mormon was originally in
English, and that getting a good translation is more by trial and error.
Should the Lord provide a provision for whoever does the translation (maybe
even a GA or even President Hinckley) to be inspired not by the English
translation (which has the imperfections of men), but by the original gold
plates? Since the translation process does not require that the plates be
anywhere nearby, such a translation would be possible without even needing
to send the plates back.
Wouldn't the missionary work in foreign nations step forward at a more rapid
pace if the missionaries could tell investigators that the BOM was
translated in their language from the gold plates by the power of God?
Imagine an investigator trying to gain a testimony over the BOM and having a
member of the Church debate the correctness of that particular translation.
And once translated into a language, it would never have to be done again
either. We would just have the "inspired" version for each language.
While I'm sure the translators at BYU or wherever are very capable and
inspired, I'm surprised the Lord doesn't take a more active role in
protecting the purity of the doctrines in the book.
"John S.Colton" <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote in message
news:vjne61c...@news.supernews.com...
>
Scott Marquardt
>Every language will eventually get a translation <snip>
??
"Every language?"
- Scott
David Bowie
: John S.Colton wrote:
: > I know there are a lot of German speakers here-- does anyone know why
: > he says that the Luschin translation "is so very controversial"? I
: > didn't find anyone who considered it particularly controversial when I
: > was a missionary, although I had heard that some members had
: > difficulties with the re-wording of the sacrament prayers when it came
: > out.
: The translation is simply bad beyond belief from a literary and
: stylistic point of view...
Hear, hear!
: ...I was given a copy by missionaries about 10
: years ago and I had to keep myself from laughing at the extremely
: miserable German used in the translation. Just one example is the
: translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
: high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
: completely silly in many places...
I don't know that you can get after Luschin in particular for this--that's
the way Menge (IIRC--it may have been Schlachter) translated the parallel
passages in the Bible, for example.
Aside from that, though, it's simply that the Luschin translation reads
horribly like a translation--a cardinal sin for scriptural translations
since the days of Luther if not Jerome.[1]
The *rumor* i heard was that the German retranslation has taken so long not
out of deference to any sort of superiority of Luschin's translation, but
rather waiting for Luschin to die and grow cold before retranslating it out
of respect for him and his mindboggling efforts involved in translating or
retranslating the Book of Mormon for, essentially, nearly all of
non-Mediterranean central and eastern Europe.
<snip>
[1] Nods to the exception of those following Buber(?) and Rosenzweig--but
those are translations with a very different purpose in mind.
David, who notes that Skousen's textual work is also newly available
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
John S.Colton
[snip]
>The translation is simply bad beyond belief from a literary and
>stylistic point of view. I was given a copy by missionaries about 10
>years ago and I had to keep myself from laughing at the extremely
>miserable German used in the translation. Just one example is the
>translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
>high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
>completely silly in many places.
Actually, IMO "und es begab sich" more properly means "and it
proceeded". BTW, that phrase is used in many Bible translations,
including the Luther translation.
> Also the translation of "Gentiles" as
>"Others" and many more such things sound ridiculous.
IIRC, "Andern" is the term used for Gentiles in many Bible
translations. Immo Luschin didn't just make it up, you know. FWIW, the
Luther Bible seems to use "Heiden" (heathen, I think), most places
where the King James uses "Gentile".
>The English BoM is
>rambling and formless in many places but it has a kind of uncouth charm
>-- the German one is simply somebody trying to sound way more important
>than his abilities allow.
Not my impression at all.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>I know this must be a really old issue, but why isn't the translation of
>such an important book a little more...ummm...inspired? The story of the
>German translation makes it sound like the Book of Mormon was originally in
>English, and that getting a good translation is more by trial and error.
Whatever you wish to believe, I think Luschin was a massive genius to
be able to do as much as he did. If it's not to your liking, that's
another thing altogether. But as far as I could ever tell, the
translation was *doctrinally* much closer to the English text than
were older translations.
Which is the important part, again, considering that the efforts from
the Church's critics and detractors almost all revolve around getting
people to not pick up the book in the first place?
>Should the Lord provide a provision for whoever does the translation (maybe
>even a GA or even President Hinckley) to be inspired not by the English
>translation (which has the imperfections of men), but by the original gold
>plates?
The writers of the "original gold plates" claimed that their
"original" was an abridgement of other stuff (therefore not an
original, y'know), and also insisted that it contained errors as well.
Therefore, what would be the point?
>Wouldn't the missionary work in foreign nations step forward at a more rapid
>pace if the missionaries could tell investigators that the BOM was
>translated in their language from the gold plates by the power of God?
No, having gone among people proselyting, I don't think that would
make much of a difference.
>While I'm sure the translators at BYU or wherever are very capable and
>inspired, I'm surprised the Lord doesn't take a more active role in
>protecting the purity of the doctrines in the book.
Again, the German translation right now is doctrinally consistent.
You'll notice that Linards' and David's criticisms of the text are
based on a few word choices and the style of it, not the doctrine.
Previous translations had a bigger problem.
Rob
TWK53
the Book of Mormon into any language are very difficult if not downright
problematic.
Could one say (a German speaking person, for example), "I believe the Book of
Mormon to be true as far as it is translated correctly."
I really don't mean to get into a big fray about this. I just find it
interesting that where I live (Utah), translations of the Bible other than King
James are looked upon with great suspicion due to supposed flaws. Yet many are
very good (who am I to say, but they read very well and often conform better to
Mormon doctrine than KJV).
My thinking is that we need to be less critical of Bible translations, perhaps
less ciritic of the Bible in general as being overly flawed and, thus,
untrustworthy.
Translation is a very difficult thing, isn't it.
At least non-English speakers have the "Quelle" (well, quasi-source document)
available in the English translation of the Book of Mormon.
Na ja.
Tom
David / Amicus
Hemisphere. It goes to prove that God spoke to people other than the
Bible and that its (the BoM) coming forth shows that God again speaks to
man today. But what relevance does it have for Europe? Has not God in
the dim past revealed himself to all peoples? Would not the ancient
inhabitants of say where Germany is have had prophets and scripture too?
These might be people who were there even before the Germanic tribes
arrived. Wouldn't it a better / greater witness if God were to reveal to
the church prophet / president that record and have him translate it?
I remember along time ago reading about the Morristes (a really
fascinating chapter in Mormon history) and anyway one of their prophets
moved to England and claimed to have found plates at some place called
St Anne's Hill and began traslating them. I mention this simply to show
that there could be ancient scripture records in the "old" world.
Might Be Me
"Robert Perkins" <rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vjq3h5f...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> >Wouldn't the missionary work in foreign nations step forward at a more
rapid
> >pace if the missionaries could tell investigators that the BOM was
> >translated in their language from the gold plates by the power of God?
You mean that you think that the vast majority of those in English speaking
lands who are converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Resored Gospel are
really impressed by the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated from the
gold plates, by the gift and power of God? Wll. perhaps some are. But how
about the vastlylarger number who are not converts despite being told that?
> No, having gone among people proselyting, I don't think that would
> make much of a difference.
I have no had your experience, but I agree with your assessment.
> >While I'm sure the translators at BYU or wherever are very capable and
> >inspired, I'm surprised the Lord doesn't take a more active role in
> >protecting the purity of the doctrines in the book.
Perhaps you are undervaluing what He actually does, and the purity of the
doctrines that matter.
Might Be Me
"TWK53" <tw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vjqdpcb...@news.supernews.com...
> I find it interesting that, from this discussion, it is obvious
translations of
> the Book of Mormon into any language are very difficult if not downright
> problematic.
>
> Could one say (a German speaking person, for example), "I believe the Book
of
> Mormon to be true as far as it is translated correctly."
Snip
> Translation is a very difficult thing, isn't it.
Yes.
Remainder snipped
Might Be Me
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vjqjeq6...@news.supernews.com...
> The BoM is a part of the record of the inhabitants of the Western
> Hemisphere. It goes to prove that God spoke to people other than the
> Bible and that its (the BoM) coming forth shows that God again speaks to
> man today. But what relevance does it have for Europe? Has not God in
> the dim past revealed himself to all peoples? Would not the ancient
> inhabitants of say where Germany is have had prophets and scripture too?
> These might be people who were there even before the Germanic tribes
> arrived. Wouldn't it a better / greater witness if God were to reveal to
> the church prophet / president that record and have him translate it?
If there are such records, then when it is time in God's economy for those
records to come forth, He will see to it. However, in the meantime, where
did the "Christian" ideas come from that the Bible was the only way in which
God spoke to people? Maybe it started with Martil Luther (or maybe not) but
in any case it was Europe which contributed much of error in "Crhistianity"
and it is Europe which can perhaps most benefit from the testimony of the
Book of Mormon.
> I remember along time ago reading about the Morristes (a really
> fascinating chapter in Mormon history) and anyway one of their prophets
> moved to England and claimed to have found plates at some place called
> St Anne's Hill and began traslating them. I mention this simply to show
> that there could be ancient scripture records in the "old" world.
We well understand that there are records in all parts of the world. After
all, it is our belief that the records of all the "lost" tribes exist and
will in due time be revealed.
Linards Ticmanis
> Actually, IMO "und es begab sich" more properly means "and it
> proceeded". BTW, that phrase is used in many Bible translations,
> including the Luther translation.
See my answer to Robert. It means most properly "And it betook
itself." It implies the opposite of things proceeding, it implies
beginning to talk about a new topic and/or an unecpected twist in the
story.
> > Also the translation of "Gentiles" as
> >"Others" and many more such things sound ridiculous.
>
> IIRC, "Andern" is the term used for Gentiles in many Bible
> translations. Immo Luschin didn't just make it up, you know.
Which translations would that be?
> FWIW, the
> Luther Bible seems to use "Heiden" (heathen, I think), most places
> where the King James uses "Gentile".
That's true. The EÜ alternates between "Völker" (the peoples) and
"Heiden" (the heathen, the pagans).
> >The English BoM is
> >rambling and formless in many places but it has a kind of uncouth charm
> >-- the German one is simply somebody trying to sound way more important
> >than his abilities allow.
>
> Not my impression at all.
Do you read German at native level?
I know how hard it is for me to judge English style, even though I
don't think my English is so terribly bad.
--
Linards Ticmanis
Linards Ticmanis
> >Just one example is the
> >translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
> >high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
> >completely silly in many places.
>
> Well for the record, that's kind of the way "And it came to pass"
> comes across in modern English. And I'm pretty sure that "es begab
> sich" is found in similar contexts in the German bibles for sale these
> days.
It's found in Luther's version of Luke 2,1, which is the start of one
of the best-known passages of the Bible to the average German, and I
guess that it was taken from there. However "Und es begab sich: ..."
(literally "and it betook itself: ..." simply means more then the
neutral "Es geschah, dass ..." which is found much more often in
German (old-style) bibles. "Es begab sich" implies that a new "story
thread" begins, and that the beginning is an unexpected one, at the
least - it simply does not make sense in the middle of a paragraph.
> > Also the translation of "Gentiles" as
> >"Others" and many more such things sound ridiculous.
>
> Coulda sworn that was the word given in the Einheitsuebersetzung. Then
> again, mine fell apart long before I could get it home. My
> Langenscheidts Taschenwoerterbuch offers "der Nichtjude" and "der
> Heide" as translations for "Gentile". Which is correct in the context?
"Der Nichtjude" (the Non-Jew) makes sense only when the word is used
in a specifically Jewish context. The EÜ uses "Die Völker" (the
peoples) when talking about Gentile peoples and "Die Heiden" (the
heathen, the pagans) when talking about individuals or small groups. I
don't remember a use of "Die Anderen" in this context (Although I
don't currently have a searchable EÜ at hand, that will have to wait
until tomorrow.)
> I doubt the Church will see an increase in convert baptisms in Germany
> just because the translation gets redone.
Well it wasn't me who said there should be one. Please complain to
your GAs if you don't like the idea.
I don't want to sound like a smart aleck, it's just that questions of
style and usage are hard to judge for a non-native speaker -- in any
language. I have the same problem in English.
--
Linards Ticmanis
John Taber
Ultimately, yes, though there are a few thousand to go. And some are
being issued on CD since the people who speak them can't read that
language. (My brother is now on a mission in Haiti, speaking Haitian
Creole and speaking French.)
What I meant was that some translations are based on a pre-1981
edition of the Book of Mormon in English. (Some are even based on a
translation from a third language.) Those languages will be getting a
new translation based on the 1981 edition, and more refined
translation methods. I'm just surprised that hadn't already happened
for German.
Linards Ticmanis
> : The translation is simply bad beyond belief from a literary and
> : stylistic point of view...
>
> Hear, hear!
Well, so I'm not quite such a lonely "Anti" as I was begining to
think. ;-)
> I don't know that you can get after Luschin in particular for this--that's
> the way Menge (IIRC--it may have been Schlachter) translated the parallel
> passages in the Bible, for example.
That might be the source. I think Luschin translated a few years
before the "Einheitsübersetzung" appeared so it is unlikely he could
have used that as his reference Bible. However both Menge and
Schlachter are from the early 20th century, and they sound extremely
dated today - in many respects more dated than Luther's translation
ever did. These two tranlations have thus almost completely fallen out
of use.
> Aside from that, though, it's simply that the Luschin translation reads
> horribly like a translation--a cardinal sin for scriptural translations
> since the days of Luther if not Jerome.[1]
If anybody is interested, Luschin's translation is online at
http://www.hlt-schriften.de
I just looked into it again to refresh my memory, and now I can
pinpoint the general oddness a bit more: The whole thing is a mixture
of quite colloquial expressions with quite "literary" expressions,
sometimes both in the same sentence.
> The *rumor* i heard was that the German retranslation has taken so long not
> out of deference to any sort of superiority of Luschin's translation, but
> rather waiting for Luschin to die and grow cold before retranslating it out
> of respect for him and his mindboggling efforts involved in translating or
> retranslating the Book of Mormon for, essentially, nearly all of
> non-Mediterranean central and eastern Europe.
Well being a non-Mormon I have no idea, does Luschin have any exalted
position in the LDS church?
> [1] Nods to the exception of those following Buber(?) and Rosenzweig--but
> those are translations with a very different purpose in mind.
Buber and Rosenzweig achieved an impressive mastery of the German
language. Their style can be characterized as "very odd, but also very
even" if you get what I mean. They completely avoid the conventions of
German literate writing and also of "bible words" and build a
Hebrew-like style from the ground up, using almost exclusively plain,
tangible words of German origin as building blocks, translating
everything into genuine German, except for proper names. Thus the
"altar" reverts back to a more concrete "slaughter site", for example.
Unfortunately being Jews, they of course didn't translate the New
Testament, and some attempts by others to translate the New Testament
along similar principles have been failures. Also the attempt to do
the same in English by Everett Fox didn't go very far either it seems.
--
Linards Ticmanis
Robert Perkins
Ticmanis) wrote:
>"Der Nichtjude" (the Non-Jew) makes sense only when the word is used
>in a specifically Jewish context.
Obviously.
> The EÜ uses "Die Völker" (the
>peoples) when talking about Gentile peoples and "Die Heiden" (the
>heathen, the pagans) when talking about individuals or small groups.
I think it would be confusing to use either "die Völker" or "die
Heiden" in the translation. The one is far too general: "Die
Mitglieder der Kirche stammen von Völkern aus vielen Länder." The
other is too specific, since "die Heiden" does not describe Muslims
nor traditional Christians.
Probably, the best translation these days would convey the original
meaning of the Hebrew word translated to English as "Gentile",
something that means a person from "the nations" or someone "outside
the covenants" or something like that.
> I
>don't remember a use of "Die Anderen" in this context
The word in the German Book of Mormon is not "die Anderen", actually.
Luschin used "die Andern", if I recall it correctly: not the same
thing.
>I don't want to sound like a smart aleck, it's just that questions of
>style and usage are hard to judge for a non-native speaker -- in any
>language. I have the same problem in English.
No offense taken, but I'm not a typical American, nor am I even a
typical American Mormon missionary, when it comes to conversational or
written German, though it's been a long time since I've really used
those skills, so I'd need some brushing up on the conversational bits.
But usage and style is like learning to ride a bicycle. Once you get
that skill ingrained, all your ideas will express themselves according
to the rules.
So, honestly, it can probably be said that David and John and I read
German at a level acceptable to most natives, if not the
Gymnasium-und-Universität groups. In my own case my readings in German
are not limited to just the scriptures or Church books; one of the
mission presidents I had, as well as several native-speakers,
recommended German books to read for language study which were very
instructive about usage and grammar.
But after 12 years it's true that I need more concentration than I did
right at the end of the mission, to parse out a newspaper article or
read a novel written in German.
Rob
John Colton
Ticmanis) wrote:
>John S.Colton <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote in message news:<vjpvibp...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>> Actually, IMO "und es begab sich" more properly means "and it
>> proceeded". BTW, that phrase is used in many Bible translations,
>> including the Luther translation.
>
>See my answer to Robert. It means most properly "And it betook
>itself." It implies the opposite of things proceeding, it implies
>beginning to talk about a new topic and/or an unecpected twist in the
>story.
I looked at a searchable Luther translation online, and the phrase was
used many many times. In all of the instances that I looked at, it
corresponded to the KJV English phrase "it came to pass". I don't see
how that can be the case if you are correct.
[snip]
>> IIRC, "Andern" is the term used for Gentiles in many Bible
>> translations. Immo Luschin didn't just make it up, you know.
>
>Which translations would that be?
If not the Einheits, than I will stand corrected (and be a bit
surprised at Luschin).
[snip]
>Do you read German at native level?
I'm not a native speaker. Are you? (Your name doesn't sound German,
FWIW.) If so, I will defer to your style opinions. Once upon a time I
could read/converse at practically a native level, but I am now out of
practice.
John
moon...@xmissionz.com
>>Just one example is the
>>translation of "And it came to pass as "Und es begab sich:" which is a
>>high-brow way to say "It happened by random chance:" which sounds
>>completely silly in many places.
"wayehi." Ditto, presumably, for whatever variant the Nephites were
speaking by 400 C.E. Thus, this single word is bound to sound stilted in
any translation that expands it into four or five words. (The only
exception I personally know of is Quechua, where it's "jinataj.") But I
sometimes think the English translation should have been simply "and
then." In fact, the KJV does sometimes reduce AICTP to something shorter.
Linards Ticmanis
> I looked at a searchable Luther translation online, and the phrase was
> used many many times. In all of the instances that I looked at, it
> corresponded to the KJV English phrase "it came to pass". I don't see
> how that can be the case if you are correct.
However it occurs much less frequently (only 66 times in the 1912
Luther bible, while the KJV has more than 440 times "And it came to
pass"). And "es begab sich" is *never* there "just so" in the middle
of a story, always at the beginning of something new and/or
unexpected. Check for yourself:
http://www.awmach.org/cgi-bin/wgi/BLU?query=und+es+begab+sich&file=dochome.htm
Most of the verses which have "it came to pass" in the KJV have
nothing or "und da" or "es geschah" or something similar.
> >> IIRC, "Andern" is the term used for Gentiles in many Bible
> >> translations. Immo Luschin didn't just make it up, you know.
> >
> >Which translations would that be?
>
> If not the Einheits, than I will stand corrected (and be a bit
> surprised at Luschin).
The EÜ was completed in 1981 IIRC, after Luschin's translations. So he
wouldn't have had it available to him. And according to David (who is
probably right) the word comes from either Menge or Schlachter,
translations that have more or less disappeared from active use.
> >Do you read German at native level?
>
> I'm not a native speaker. Are you? (Your name doesn't sound German,
> FWIW.)
Yes. My grandfather was Latvian, he fled to Germany in late 1944 when
the Soviets invaded Latvia for the second time. My father was just two
years old back then and my mother is from a German familiy (documented
back to 1260 A.D., if I was a Mormon I'd be a very busy person...)
> If so, I will defer to your style opinions. Once upon a time I
> could read/converse at practically a native level, but I am now out of
> practice.
It's mostly the same with my English. Of course getting English
language materials over here is probably easier than getting German
materials in the US. Especially now that DVDs have become so well
established most American movies you can rent here have both versions
on the disk.
--
Linards Ticmanis
John Colton
Ticmanis) wrote:
[snip]
>The EÜ was completed in 1981 IIRC, after Luschin's translations. So he
>wouldn't have had it available to him. And according to David (who is
>probably right) the word comes from either Menge or Schlachter,
>translations that have more or less disappeared from active use.
[snip]
Right. I was saying that I thought I had read it in the Einheits,
which would presumably mean that Luschin & the Einheits had got the
word from a common source (finding it doubtful that Luschin would have
made up that word choice himself). I haven't read Menge or Schlachter.
John
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>Those languages will be getting a
>new translation based on the 1981 edition, and more refined
>translation methods. I'm just surprised that hadn't already happened
>for German.
I'm not. For all its history, I think the Church is smaller in
German-speaking Europe than it is in Japan, for example.
Rob
Robert Perkins
Ticmanis) wrote:
>Buber and Rosenzweig achieved an impressive mastery of the German
>language. Their style can be characterized as "very odd, but also very
>even" if you get what I mean. They completely avoid the conventions of
>German literate writing and also of "bible words" and build a
>Hebrew-like style from the ground up, using almost exclusively plain,
>tangible words of German origin as building blocks, translating
>everything into genuine German, except for proper names. Thus the
>"altar" reverts back to a more concrete "slaughter site", for example.
It's getting a bit off topic here, but I confess I'd really like to
see those translations. About a year into my mission, noticing that
the native speakers used an entire class of words not taught to me, I
gave up using the "Fremdw=F6rter" needed to get ideas across, and tried
for learning the words the people were using, rather than the English
or French words that were their equivalents.=20
Such a skill comes in handy, when your companion is a journeyman baker
from Salzburg with no skills at all speaking or understanding the
English language.=20
At any rate, a translation such as you mention would be fascinating
for me to read. Is it online in any place?
Rob
Linards Ticmanis
[note to moderators: It might not be totally on-topic but it is
discussing the German translation of the BoM which should be on-topic
enough.]
["Gentiles"]
> I think it would be confusing to use either "die Völker" or "die
> Heiden" in the translation. The one is far too general: "Die
> Mitglieder der Kirche stammen von Völkern aus vielen Länder." The
> other is too specific, since "die Heiden" does not describe Muslims
> nor traditional Christians.
"Heiden" was traditonally always applied to Muslims, basically to all
who were not Christians, Jews, or Atheists; the "Heathen Turks" (who
attempted to conquer Austria twice) were a standing expression of
earlier times. If used in a Jewish context the term can be understood
to include Christians. Today the term "Heiden" is not used so much any
more (it's considered not very PC.)
"Völker" (which can mean both "peoples" and "nations") seems quite
appropriate. It is normally used today for Hebrew "goyim". For example
Arthur Schindler was called "ein Gerechter unter den Völkern" (a
righteous one among the gentiles) by Holocaust survivors. It is more
acceptable than "Heiden".
> Probably, the best translation these days would convey the original
> meaning of the Hebrew word translated to English as "Gentile",
> something that means a person from "the nations" or someone "outside
> the covenants" or something like that.
"Völker" serves well enough in these respects, according to my
personal "language instinct".
> The word in the German Book of Mormon is not "die Anderen", actually.
> Luschin used "die Andern", if I recall it correctly: not the same
> thing.
There's no more difference than "colour" and "color"; it's just an
orthographic variation. "Andern" is the more colloquial spelling (if
there is such a thing as a "colloquial spelling" but I think you'll
get what I mean).
And "die andern" sounds *very* "us vs. them without a reason" to me.
The other terms give you more of a sense that the "us vs. them" has a
basis in facts.
> So, honestly, it can probably be said that David and John and I read
> German at a level acceptable to most natives, if not the
> Gymnasium-und-Universität groups. In my own case my readings in German
> are not limited to just the scriptures or Church books; one of the
> mission presidents I had, as well as several native-speakers,
> recommended German books to read for language study which were very
> instructive about usage and grammar.
That's nice to hear. Actually I get the feeling that often enough, the
missonaries themselves benefit more from their missions than the tiny
German LDS church.
> But after 12 years it's true that I need more concentration than I did
> right at the end of the mission, to parse out a newspaper article or
> read a novel written in German.
Well, I'm currently winding my way through "The Lord of the Rings" in
English, and the dictionary is almost shredded to pieces by now... and
most words and phrases that I have to look up aren't even in it. Yes,
reading literature is another thing than engaging in a bit of
small-talk.
--
Linards Ticmanis
John S.Colton
>German-speaking Europe than it is in Japan, for example.=20
I think the church Euro HQ being in Frankfurt does, however, often
give Germany a leg-up (compared to other Euro countries) when it comes
to that type of thing.
John Taber
You're right about that. In terms of (presumably first) languages
Japanese is #6, at 115,000. The top ten, according to
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4042-1---13-168,00.html are
English, Spanish, Portugese, Tagalog, Cebuano, Japanese, Ilokano,
Samoan, Korean, and Tongan.
In Germany, Austria, and (I'm estimating) two-thirds of Switzerland,
there are a total of 45,000 German-speaking LDS. But that's more than
twice as many as there are Italian-speaking LDS, and they've had a
newer (and crisper) translation for several years now.
John Taber
> I think the church Euro HQ being in Frankfurt does, however, often
> give Germany a leg-up (compared to other Euro countries) when it comes
> to that type of thing.
That and German is a second language for much of Europe. My guess is,
(and this is why French and Italian had to wait as long as they did)
the priority was those languages that had nothing. Spanish didn't get
their new translation until 1992 or 1993. French has a full triple
combination, but Italian still doesn't.
James C. Miller
<snip>
> Should the Lord provide a provision for whoever does the translation (maybe
> even a GA or even President Hinckley) to be inspired not by the English
> translation (which has the imperfections of men), but by the original gold
> plates? Since the translation process does not require that the plates be
> anywhere nearby, such a translation would be possible without even needing
> to send the plates back.
>
> Wouldn't the missionary work in foreign nations step forward at a more rapid
> pace if the missionaries could tell investigators that the BOM was
> translated in their language from the gold plates by the power of God?
> Imagine an investigator trying to gain a testimony over the BOM and having a
> member of the Church debate the correctness of that particular translation.
> And once translated into a language, it would never have to be done again
> either. We would just have the "inspired" version for each language.
I, as an atheist exmormon, am about to give a genuine compliment to a
TBM for a post I think is outstanding. Please accept my assurances
that there is nothing patronizing, ironic, or sarcastic in what you're
about to read. You're about to read sincere words from a sincere
heart. If anyone perceives anything but sincerity, let him look to
his own heart for where such interpretations came from because they
certainly didn't come from me.
All that having been said, I'd like to extend genuine and sincere
congratulations on one of the most original and refreshingly unique
and thought-provoking posts I've read in a long time in this
newsgroup. I perceive it to exhibit a genuine belief in the LDS
church and its doctrines, a better than average understanding of those
doctrines, and the ability to draw logical conclusions from those
doctrines for application in an important instance.
> While I'm sure the translators at BYU or wherever are very capable and
> inspired, I'm surprised the Lord doesn't take a more active role in
> protecting the purity of the doctrines in the book.
Me, too. It would seem that the spectacular and prolific translation
of ancient doctrine containing documents by prophets seems restricted
to King Mosiah/Benjamin (depending on which version of the BoM you
read) and Joseph Smith, Jr. The only thing spectacular I can see
recently was the spectacular failure to detect Hoffman's forgeries,
particularly of the McLellen collection which the church ALREADY
OWNED, having bought it up in 1908. THAT one should have been a no
brainer even for someone denied divine discernment for forgeries.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
TWK53
>> pace if the missionaries could tell investigators that the BOM was
>> translated in their language from the gold plates by the power of God?
>> Imagine an investigator trying to gain a testimony over the BOM and having
>a
>> member of the Church debate the correctness of that particular translation.
>> And once translated into a language, it would never have to be done again
>> either. We would just have the "inspired" version for each language.
>
We Mormons 'grumble' about the Bible being reliable "as far as it is translated
correctly," yet we turn the translation of the Book of Mormon, for which we now
consider the English version as the source document, over to whomever. Not that
anyone takes the business of translation lightly, but, as in the case of the
German translation, previous translations must not be all that reliable (read
that as "translated correctly"), else why is it being done again?
Even if we don't (won't) have the gold plates as a source document, I tend to
agree with JamesB's sentiments. Where is the standard for non-English
translations?
Tom
John Taber
previous translations must not be all that reliable (read
> that as "translated correctly"), else why is it being done again?
For one, the Brethren are more comfortable with the 1981 edition in
English as a base text. Also, they've refined translation methods
considerably.
> Even if we don't (won't) have the gold plates as a source document, I tend to
> agree with JamesB's sentiments. Where is the standard for non-English
> translations?
Back in 1992, when the Church came out with new translations in
Spanish, there were a few articles in the Church News about the
process used then. I don't think it's changed much since - the
translations I've seen since (including Italian and French) certainly
reflect these principles.
Church leaders do not include the Bible in the work of translation
because most nations already have the Bible available in native
languages. Church leaders have expressed a debt of gratitude and love
to members of Bible societies who have literally dedicated their lives
to the translation of the Bible into new languages.
But much work in translating the LDS standard works is yet to be
accomplished - and this work is done with great care. To begin with,
approval for translation into a given language comes directly from the
First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.
Then a search is initiated for qualified translators among
faithful members of the Church. Members of the committees involved in
this search said they are pleased at how well the translators have
often been prepared - both spiritually and technically.
Typically, translation teams include translators, reviewers,
proofreaders and quality control people.
The translation process includes two aspects.
First, there are the technical aspects, including grammar and
knowledge of the culture of the language into which the scriptures are
being translated.
Second, there are the spiritual aspects. Translators are
admonished to strive for the gift of translation, just as the Lord
exhorted Oliver Cowdery in D&C 8:11: ``Ask . . . that you may
translate and receive knowledge from all those ancient records. . . ,
that are sacred; and according to your faith shall it be done unto
you.''
Once the translators document was prepared, the translation and
review processes were accomplished by several committees. The focus of
these reviews were to check carefully for any differences of meaning
between English and Spanish words or phrases to ensure that all
doctrines were communicated correctly and clearly with appropriate
dignified language.
In addition, the review committees ensured that the translated
scriptures reflected the Hebraic elements found in the English edition
of the Book of Mormon. For example, in 1 Ne. 3:2; and 8:2, Lehi
states, ``I have dreamed a dream.'' In Spanish, it is not considered
good style to repeat two word forms of the same origin so close to
each other. However, according to the Scriptures Committee, this is a
significant Hebraic speech pattern and, thus, was preserved in the
translation process.
Once the translation process was complete, the new triple
combination was graphically prepared and typeset. Printing films were
then developed for distribution to publishing facilities in various
locations.
And finally, Robert Rees in Dialogue makes the case that Joseph Smith
translated the Book of Mormon not into literal English, as much as
into language that he and his Bible-literate neighbors could
understand.
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/Vol35/Dialogue-Rees.pdf
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>In Germany, Austria, and (I'm estimating) two-thirds of Switzerland,
>there are a total of 45,000 German-speaking LDS. But that's more than
>twice as many as there are Italian-speaking LDS, and they've had a
>newer (and crisper) translation for several years now.
Once you've got it in Spanish, you're 3/4ths of the way there for
Italian, Portuguese, and maybe even French.
Rob
John Taber
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:01:18 -0000, jwt...@juno.com (John Taber)
> wrote:
>
> >In Germany, Austria, and (I'm estimating) two-thirds of Switzerland,
> >there are a total of 45,000 German-speaking LDS. But that's more than
> >twice as many as there are Italian-speaking LDS, and they've had a
> >newer (and crisper) translation for several years now.
>
> Italian, Portuguese, and maybe even French.
In terms of structure, yes. In terms of vocabulary, not necessarily.
(Romanian has a very different POD from Latin than Italian or French.)
Incidentally, while the Italian Doctrine and Covenants hasn't come out
yet, the Book of Mormon does change the sacrament prayers. And while
I hadn't thought that would happen, I do understand the change. It's
a matter of changing "That they may eat" from "Affinche lo mangiano"
to "Affinche lo possano mangiare".
Linards Ticmanis
> Once you've got it in Spanish, you're 3/4ths of the way there for
> Italian, Portuguese, and maybe even French.
How's that? They're not more similar than English and Afrikaans for all
that I know.
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>> Once you've got it in Spanish, you're 3/4ths of the way there for
>> Italian, Portuguese, and maybe even French.
>
>In terms of structure, yes. In terms of vocabulary, not necessarily.
>(Romanian has a very different POD from Latin than Italian or French.)
I didn't mention Romanian. And I do know what I'm talking about. I've
had my head steeped in translations for my company's software in
German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese for the last
four months and it's gotten to the point where I understand roughly
2000 phrases in all six languages now, and I tell you, the Romance
languages are so similar to one another they might as well still be
classed as dialects of Latin.
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:13:33 -0000, Linards Ticmanis <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>
>>How's that? They're not more similar than English and Afrikaans for all
>>that I know.
Afrikaans has more to do with German than English. Leastwise it was
German I had to use to understand it, when someone spoke it to me
years ago.
Also, if you're paying attention you can't really serve a mission in
Switzerland without coming across daily reminders that French and
Italian are very similar, both in vocabulary and grammatical
structure.
And I *did* say "three-fourths", not "virtually all"
Rob, who will translate for food, as long as he gets a staff of
localizers to help
Rich Wales
> Incidentally, while the Italian Doctrine and Covenants
> hasn't come out yet, the Book of Mormon does change
> the sacrament prayers. And while I hadn't thought
> that would happen, I do understand the change. It's
> a matter of changing "That they may eat" from "Affinche
> lo mangiano" to "Affinche lo possano mangiare".
Interesting. I don't speak more than a smattering of Italian,
but my assumption is that a distinction is being made here
between simply "so that they will eat [it, i.e., the bread]"
on the one hand, and something like "so that they will be able
to eat [it]" on the other -- or, stated another way, that the
new form is meant to convey the idea that the blessing of the
bread will =enable= or =empower= those who partake to do so in
remembrance of Christ's body.
Is this what you think is the idea behind the change in the
translation? It isn't quite as obvious in English, I don't
think, because the "may" in "that they may eat" could simply
be a way of expressing a future hope or desire (making up for
the general lack of special optative/subjunctive verb forms
in English), and might not necessarily refer to a literal
empowerment (though it could).
Rich Wales ri...@richw.org http://www.richw.org
John Taber
this newsgroup.]
Robert Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vkcng86...@news.supernews.com>...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 06:26:12 -0000, jwt...@juno.com (John Taber)
> wrote:
>
> >> Once you've got it in Spanish, you're 3/4ths of the way there for
> >> Italian, Portuguese, and maybe even French.
> >
> >In terms of structure, yes. In terms of vocabulary, not necessarily.
> >(Romanian has a very different POD from Latin than Italian or French.)
>
> I didn't mention Romanian. And I do know what I'm talking about. I've
> had my head steeped in translations for my company's software in
> German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese for the last
> four months and it's gotten to the point where I understand roughly
> 2000 phrases in all six languages now, and I tell you, the Romance
> languages are so similar to one another they might as well still be
> classed as dialects of Latin.
I can read Spanish or French (and a little Romanian) but it helps to
also know 1) English and 2) the context. To transpose Italian to
French or Spanish with any clarity, I couldn't do. Yes, those three
languages (along with Portugese and Catalan) all come from the same
source - writing Latin the way it was being spoken in the early part
of the second millenium - but from there it breaks down. Endings are
different, pronunciation varies, usage even varies (the words for
"seventy" is "settanta" in Italian and "soixante-dix" in French.) I
could give other examples.
It is true, that yes, once all the decisions have been made for how to
translate things into Spanish, then they've been made in French,
Italian, Portugese and Catalan. But it's _not_ like Danish, Swedish
and Norwegian, or Afrikaans and Dutch - it's more like Dutch and
German.
John Taber
> Interesting. I don't speak more than a smattering of Italian,
> but my assumption is that a distinction is being made here
> between simply "so that they will eat [it, i.e., the bread]"
> on the one hand, and something like "so that they will be able
> to eat [it]" on the other -- or, stated another way, that the
> new form is meant to convey the idea that the blessing of the
> bread will =enable= or =empower= those who partake to do so in
> remembrance of Christ's body.
I hadn't thought about it - the sacrament prayers as already
translated were one of the things I used to learn Italian - so if I'd
done this translation I wouldn't have thought to do it differently.
Given that it has been, it makes sense. I was pleasantly surprised.
> Is this what you think is the idea behind the change in the
> translation? It isn't quite as obvious in English, I don't
> think, because the "may" in "that they may eat" could simply
> be a way of expressing a future hope or desire (making up for
> the general lack of special optative/subjunctive verb forms
> in English), and might not necessarily refer to a literal
> empowerment (though it could).
Translating it back, to me (and I never took an Italian class after my
mission) it comes out as a choice between "such that they do eat" and
"such that they are able to eat", and while the former may be a
cleaner and more grammatical fit, the latter is a better fit.
Eric
> Thus, this single word is bound to sound stilted in
> any translation that expands it into four or five words.
In the Spanish translation, if I remember right, there are three or so
different phrases that are used, apparently to give the text some
variety. I could find no logic in trying to determine which phrase was
used. And in one of the translations, I don't remember which, the phrase
is left untranslated, although I think there's an asterisk to indicate
that there was a phrase in the original.
Ann Porter
news:vmoi9m8...@news.supernews.com...
In the French BofM, the phrase is translated once in a footnote. Then, it's
replaced throughout by an asterisk.
Best,
Ann
John Taber
> In the French BofM, the phrase is translated once in a footnote. Then, it's
> replaced throughout by an asterisk.
But not in the current edition. Though in that one (never mind in
Italian) I haven't gone side by side to compare occurences in English
with whether or not it's translated, and if so, as what.
Ann Porter
news:vmsrft7...@news.supernews.com...
it's
> > replaced throughout by an asterisk.
>
> Italian) I haven't gone side by side to compare occurences in English
> with whether or not it's translated, and if so, as what.
What's the translation date on your edition? I didn't think mine was old
enough to have been retranslated (it's from 1985).
Best,
Ann
Philip Newton
<porte...@charter.net> wrote:
[and it came to pass]
> In the French BofM, the phrase is translated once in a footnote. Then, it's
> replaced throughout by an asterisk.
I've also seen [] (open/close square bracket) to indicate that AICTP was
dropped. (Old German BofMs? Not sure where.)
I believe there was a movement a while back to restore AICTP to
translation that had traditionally dropped it to re-inforce the Hebrew
connection of the original text, or something, so there probably won't
be new translations with similar omission symbols.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
That really is my address; no need to remove anything to reply.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Ann Porter
news:vmtu1h9...@news.supernews.com...
> I believe there was a movement a while back to restore AICTP to
> translation that had traditionally dropped it to re-inforce the Hebrew
> connection of the original text, or something, so there probably won't
> be new translations with similar omission symbols.
It's a Hebraism? Funny you don't see it much in the OT. I've always
thought it was superfluous and meaningless. Just a way to turn a pamphlet
into a book...
Best,
Ann, citing the great prophet Twain
Might Be Me
> "Philip Newton" <pne-news...@newton.digitalspace.net> wrote in
message
> news:vmtu1h9...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> It's a Hebraism? Funny you don't see it much in the OT.
Indeed it is, since it is there.
Here are some of the references:
Genesis 4:3, 8; Gen 6:1; Gen 7:10; Gen 8:6, 13; Gen 11:2; Gen 12:11,14; Gen
14:1; Gen 15:17; Gen 19:17, 29, 34; Gen 20:13; Gen 21:22; Gen 22:,.20; Gen
24:15, 22,30,52; Gen 25:11; Gen 26:8, 32; Gen 27:1, 30; Gen 29:10, 13, 23,
25; Gen 30:25, 41; Gen 31:10; Gen 34:25; Gen 35:17, 18, 22; Gen 37:23; Gen
38:1, 24, 27, 28, 29; Gen 39: 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18; Gen 40:1, 20.
I have little time right now or I could no doubt overwhelm you and the
moderators (<G>) with citations! But I will look for the last reference in
the Old Testament. I believe it is the 1199th instance of this phrase and is
(Zechariah 7:1.)
1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of
the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in
Chisleu;
> I've always thought it was superfluous and meaningless. Just a way to
turn a pamphlet
> into a book...
I wonder how often our perceptions are determined by our preconceptions. How
often we filter out what we have decided not to see.
> Best,
> Ann, citing the great prophet Twain
Who said what?
Ann Porter
news:vmujq47...@news.supernews.com...
> > Best,
> > Ann, citing the great prophet Twain
>
>
> Who said what?
Who said that if you took the phrase "and it came to pass" out of the Book
of Mormon, it would be a pamphlet.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
news:vmujq47...@news.supernews.com...
> I have little time right now or I could no doubt overwhelm you and the
> moderators (<G>) with citations! But I will look for the last reference in
> the Old Testament. I believe it is the 1199th instance of this phrase and
is
The electronic text center at the University of Virginia has an electronic
KJV with a search engine. It counts the number of occurrences of a phrase
and groups them by book. Tres cool.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
Took me about 60 seconds to look up all the matches for the phrase "And it
came to pass." There are 396 of them, not including the apocrypha, but
including the Old and New Testaments. 130 of those were in just three books
(Genesis, and 1st and 2nd Kings). Another 37 were in Luke, which I
interesting - I thought he was a late writer, and wrote in Greek. As a
matter of fact, I thought he WAS Greek. If you use the phrase "it came to
pass" (minus the "and") as the search, it comes up 453 times, not including
the apocrypha.
But you're right; the phrase is certainly there.
Best,
Ann
Might Be Me
Snip
> I have little time right now or I could no doubt overwhelm you and the
> moderators (<G>) with citations! But I will look for the last reference in
> the Old Testament. I believe it is the 1199th instance of this phrase and
is
Ooops! The keys repeated to fast. I meanjt the 199th instance.
> (Zechariah 7:1.)
>
>
> 1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of
> the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in
> Chisleu;
Snip
Might Be Me
I am sure that his temple ordinance work has been done, probably both under
the name of Mark Twain and his "real" name. I hope he has repented and
accepted that work.
John Taber
> > But not in the current edition. Though in that one (never mind in
> > Italian) I haven't gone side by side to compare occurences in English
> > with whether or not it's translated, and if so, as what.
>
> What's the translation date on your edition? I didn't think mine was old
> enough to have been retranslated (it's from 1985).
Circa 1996, about the same time as the "new" Italian translation.
(This goes back to the thread about the new German translation.)
Basically, the Church is putting out new translations for every
language, based on more refined translation methods and using the 1981
English edition as a base text. Like I said, I haven't gone over it
side by side (and I don't know enough French do be able to do that
effectively) but there aren't any asterisks now in French. The new
Italian translation is certainly more refined.
James C. Miller
> news:vmu7avi...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Philip Newton" <pne-news...@newton.digitalspace.net> wrote in
> message
> > news:vmtu1h9...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> Snip
>
> > It's a Hebraism? Funny you don't see it much in the OT.
>
> Indeed it is, since it is there.
But not nearly as frequently as in the BoM.
The phrase is used by my count (including variants, "Now it came to
pass," "For
Behold it cme to pass," and "But Behold it came to pass,") 1,381 times
in the current version of the BoM, but only 526 times in the Old
Testament and just a mere 87 times in the New Testament.
Statistically, the over-use of the phrase in the BoM is significant,
just on the bases of sheer usage, i.e. well over twice as many uses as
in the Old and New Testaments put together. It gets worse. If you
calculate its use on a per page basis (using Amazon.com book listings
for the word counts) you get:
Book BoM OT NT Whole Bible
# of uses 1,381 526 87 613
Pages in Book 626 1,624 725 2,349
usage / Page 2.2 0.33 0.12 0.26
Bear in mind I just banged this out quickly at my desk at work. I
could probably come up with better page numbers later at home, but I
suspect that the proportions could hold in ballpark terms.
Essentially, the BoM uses the phrase 6.7 times more often per page
than does the OT (Ancient Hebrew), 18.3 times more often than does the
NT (Ancient Greek), and 8.46 times than the Bible as a whole.
Clearly, the BoM uses the phrase FAR more frequently than the Bible.
<snip>
> > I've always thought it was superfluous and meaningless. Just a way to
> turn a pamphlet
> > into a book...
>
> I wonder how often our perceptions are determined by our preconceptions. How
> often we filter out what we have decided not to see.
I wonder about the filters used here to come up with the preconceived
misconception that the frequency of use of "And it came to pass" was
similar in the Bible and BoM when it clearly isn't. You're right: how
often we filter out what we have decided not to see, in this case the
disproportionate use of "And it came to pass" in the BoM.
I also wonder, if the phrase really is a hebraicism, why is it used so
differently in the BoM than in the Old Testament, the latter
translated from ancient Hebrew?
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
John S.Colton
[snip]
>I also wonder, if the phrase really is a hebraicism, why is it used so
>differently in the BoM than in the Old Testament, the latter
>translated from ancient Hebrew?
Would you expect it to be used at the same rate? This is a serious
question.
I wouldn't. Languages do drift apart, you know. Just look at British
English and American English-- and we've only been apart for a couple
of hundred years, with continual contact the whole time! And of the
BoM writers who actually learned Hebrew in Jerusalem, we have only one
sample: Nephi. That's hardly statistically significant; he could
easily be an outlier in the "rate of it came to pass usage" data.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
DARIUS
> the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in
> Chisleu;
Ahh! There's my (admittedly chosen) namesake. Long live the Mede' and others
who bear is royal gift.
- Michael (Darius)
"There can be only one."
G.O.D. of Kish ~ (G)ames (O)perational (D)irector
"And if it harm none, do as you will."
David Bowie
: "Might Be Me" <n...@any.com> wrote...
: > Ann Porter wrote:
: > > Ann, citing the great prophet Twain
: > Who said what?
: Who said that if you took the phrase "and it came to pass" out of the
: Book of Mormon, it would be a pamphlet.
And that, having read the Book of Mormon, he could say it was "chloroform in
print".
David, still shocked at how many Mormons miss the (excellent) joke
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
James C. Miller
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:53:27 -0000, James C. Miller wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >I also wonder, if the phrase really is a hebraicism, why is it used so
> >differently in the BoM than in the Old Testament, the latter
> >translated from ancient Hebrew?
>
> Would you expect it to be used at the same rate? This is a serious
> question.
Well, yes, of course. To be a hebraicism and thus a BoM proof, its
use has to be noticeably similar to Hebrew. If it is not noticeably
similar, it can't be a hebraicism and it can't be a BoM proof.
I'm curious which way you're arguing. Are you arguing that it IS a
hebraicism (a characteristic of ancient Hebrew) and thus a BoM proof,
or are you arguing that it's NOT a hebraicism?. If the former, I
suggest that its much higher frequency of use in the BoM than in the
OT strongly suggets it is not a hebraicism at all and thus not a BoM
proof. If the latter, why bring it up and defend it?
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
Joel Rees
> >
> > Indeed it is, since it is there.
>
> But not nearly as frequently as in the BoM.
There is a group of men I know who have a habit of using the word
"mitemi" ("lookyhere!") and/or "omae" ("you!" according to the
dictionary, but the way they use it seems to mean something like "it's
right in front of you!", or perhaps "you know what I'm talking
about!") about every time they open there mouths, sometimes at the
rate of twice or three times a sentence.
This habit seems to be part of the dialect of Japanese they speak. I'm
not sure how far it goes back.
If we were expecting the Book of Mormon to conform to the rules of
modern (last four centuries) peer-reviewed journals, this thought
would likely incite more doubts than anything.
But if we were expecting the Book of Mormon to be an
abridgement/collection of personal writings compiled by the military
leader of a decedant society and his son in their spare time, why
should we be surprised at evidence of some personal habits, even if we
moderns would tend to call the habits bad?
(I know that looks like apologetic to you, James, but what you seem to
be telling me is that I should expect the Book of Mormon to be
something it says it is not.)
> ...
Joel
James C. Miller
> If we were expecting the Book of Mormon to conform to the rules of
> modern (last four centuries) peer-reviewed journals, this thought
> would likely incite more doubts than anything.
The New Testament does and there are millions more people who believe
in it than in the BoM. Rather than inciting doubt, it seems to
bolster faith.
>
> But if we were expecting the Book of Mormon to be an
> abridgement/collection of personal writings compiled by the military
> leader of a decedant society and his son in their spare time, why
> should we be surprised at evidence of some personal habits, even if we
> moderns would tend to call the habits bad?
>
> (I know that looks like apologetic to you, James,
Being an apologist is nothing to be ashamed of. Both apologists and
critics perform time-honored and respected roles in dialog and
discussion. I'm proud to be a critic. You should be proud to be an
apologist.
> but what you seem to
> be telling me is that I should expect the Book of Mormon to be
> something it says it is not.)
I suggest that this discussion actually has less to do with the BoM
and more to do with argumentation tactics, in this instance,
apologists backing off a position they took which proves undefendable.
Apologists say, "Look in the BoM at the phrase 'And it came to pass.'
It's just like in the Bible. In fact, it is a hebraicism reflecting
the Hebrew language antecedents of the BoM. That proves the BoM is
true."
Then the critics point out that the use of the phrase in the BoM
differs noticably from that in the OT in terms of frequency. That
it's NOT just like in the Bible casts reasonable doubt on it as a
hebraicism and proof of the BoM.
So apologists back off calling it a hebraicism, and instead call it
all kinds of other things, such as personal habits. The trouble is I
don't see how personal habits can be used like a hebraicism as a proof
of the BoM.
I happen to agree with Joel that it very likely could be a personal
habit. Where we differ is that I think it was Joseph Smith's personal
habit and that he was using it to make the BoM sound biblical and
simply didn't know he was using it far more frequently than in the
actual Bible. I also suspect that the sound of this biblical,
prophetic phrase rolling off the lips of the charismatic Joseph Smith
as he dictated was impressive and moving to his scribes. When I was a
TBM I would have been moved. I would not be surprised if Joseph,
seeing the obvious effect on his scribes, was not thus psychologically
encouraged to continue using it.
Plus, in English, it's a filler, useful when you're dictating away for
hours.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
David Bowie
: John S.Colton <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote...
: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:53:27 -0000, James C. Miller wrote:
: > >I also wonder, if the phrase really is a hebraicism, why is it used so
: > >differently in the BoM than in the Old Testament, the latter
: > >translated from ancient Hebrew?
: > Would you expect it to be used at the same rate? This is a serious
: > question.
: Well, yes, of course. To be a hebraicism and thus a BoM proof, its
: use has to be noticeably similar to Hebrew. If it is not noticeably
: similar, it can't be a hebraicism and it can't be a BoM proof.
I've tended to think that the argument is that using AICTP as a linking form
is a Hebraicism, not that its usage rate or style beyond that are.
<snip>
David, pointedly not offering his opinion on the issue
James C. Miller
> From: "James C. Miller" <miller...@earthlink.net>
> : John S.Colton <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote...
> : > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:53:27 -0000, James C. Miller wrote:
>
> : > Would you expect it to be used at the same rate? This is a serious
> : > question.
>
> : Well, yes, of course. To be a hebraicism and thus a BoM proof, its
> : use has to be noticeably similar to Hebrew. If it is not noticeably
> : similar, it can't be a hebraicism and it can't be a BoM proof.
>
> I've tended to think that the argument is that using AICTP as a linking form
> is a Hebraicism, not that its usage rate or style beyond that are.
>
that the usage rate or style are fundamental elements of being a
hebraicism, not something separate or apart from it. If you lack one
of the major elements of being a hebraicism, i.e. frequency of use,
that's one less argument that it's a hebraicism and thus one less
argument for the validity of the BoM.
My personal opinion is that neither chiasmus nor hebraicisms can be
defended as proof of the validity of the BoM. But I do think the BoM
has does indeed have secondary hebraic roots insofar as Joseph Smith
copied what he perceived as the Biblical style and that included the
use of the phrase to make the BoM sound more like the Biblical
scripture with which his contemporaries were acquainted.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
Rich Wales
> > In the French BofM, the phrase ["and it came to pass"]
> > is translated once in a footnote. Then, it's replaced
> > throughout by an asterisk.
John Taber wrote:
> But not in the current edition.
What verb form is used in the main part of sentences starting with
this expression?
My understanding has been that "it came to pass" was largely left
out in at least some translations of the Book of Mormon in order
to avoid having to use awkward and/or archaic grammatical construc-
tions so frequently throughout the text.
My French is a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that one reason why
the asterisk approach was used (at least in earlier editions) was
that if a sentence starts with "il arriva que", strictly correct
literary French usage requires the following verb to be in the (by
now thoroughly archaic) past subjunctive.
Similarly, in German, if a sentence starts with "es geschah, daß",
this turns the remainder of the sentence into a subordinate clause,
and what would otherwise have been the main verb gets pushed all
the way to the end. This transformation of word order in subordi-
nate clauses is perfectly normal in German, but to have it happen
=all= the time would make reading of the text rather stressful.
On the other hand, I once saw a Norwegian BoM which contained "det
skjedde at" again and again without apology -- even though this
did require some rearrangement of word order in some (but not all)
of the resulting subordinate clauses.
Ann Porter
news:vncifl4...@news.supernews.com...
> Similarly, in German, if a sentence starts with "es geschah, daß",
> this turns the remainder of the sentence into a subordinate clause,
> and what would otherwise have been the main verb gets pushed all
> the way to the end. This transformation of word order in subordi-
> nate clauses is perfectly normal in German, but to have it happen
> =all= the time would make reading of the text rather stressful.
So why should the Germans have it easier than we do?
:)
Best,
Ann
John Taber
> What verb form is used in the main part of sentences starting with
> this expression?
I don't have French in front of me, but I do have Italian, translated
about the same time, with a parallel language structure and about the
same flow for the translation. Just spotchecking, I consistently come
up with "E avenne che" for "And it came to pass"; "Ed ora avenne che"
for "And now it came to pass"; and "Ora avenne che" for "Now it came
to pass".
Before Italian used "Ed avenne che" if it used anything at all for
"And it came to pass."
> My understanding has been that "it came to pass" was largely left
> out in at least some translations of the Book of Mormon in order
> to avoid having to use awkward and/or archaic grammatical construc-
> tions so frequently throughout the text.
It looks like, for anything translated in the last ten years or so
(that I've seen), they tried to just keep it simple and smooth. For
Italian at least, a given word or phrase in English is always
translated the same way into Italian. (Computers helped with that,
I'm sure.) It's word-for-word in the sense that the it's the same
rhythm as in English, but it's tweaked to make sure that the intent is
the same as well sentence-by-sentence. Like the example I gave before
with the sacrament prayers, "Affinche lo mangiano" might be a literal
translation of "That they may eat" but "Affinche possano mangiarne" is
a better fit for the meaning*. Knowledge is translated as "sapere"
instead of "scienza".
(*I don't think that's how I posted that before, but I have both
translations in front of me now.)
> My French is a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that one reason why
> the asterisk approach was used (at least in earlier editions) was
> that if a sentence starts with "il arriva que", strictly correct
> literary French usage requires the following verb to be in the (by
> now thoroughly archaic) past subjunctive.
I don't know if that's the case in Italian (I never was up on my verb
tenses) but while "avenne" is past remote (I remember _that_), nothing
else in a verse that has it is. I know they are cutting corners like
that with grammar in other languages as well. In Italian, "dreamed a
dream" is now "sognato un sogno" instead of "avuto un sogno" (had a
dream.)
John S.Colton
[snip]
>Similarly, in German, if a sentence starts with "es geschah, daß",
>this turns the remainder of the sentence into a subordinate clause,
>and what would otherwise have been the main verb gets pushed all
>the way to the end. This transformation of word order in subordi-
>nate clauses is perfectly normal in German, but to have it happen
>=all= the time would make reading of the text rather stressful.
[snip]
The current German version uses a colon instead of "daß" to get around
that problem. (And "es begab sich" instead of "es geschah" as has
been recently discussed.)
Joel Rees
> jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp (Joel Rees) wrote in message news:<vn5oo53...@news.supernews.com>...
> > If we were expecting the Book of Mormon to conform to the rules of
> > modern (last four centuries) peer-reviewed journals, this thought
> > would likely incite more doubts than anything.
>
> The New Testament does and there are millions more people who believe
> in it than in the BoM.
What little the New Testament does conform to rules of modern
peer-reviewed journals has less to do with the origins and more to do
with the compilation. I would think. It might also have a lot to do
with Paul's background, since he is putatively the author of most of
the epistles.
(I wrote a lot of apologetic here, then I trimmed it out when I got to
this point:)
>...
The reason for the frequency of use of the phrase in question is
something neither you nor I will likely know in this life. If I
remember, I might ask Mormon when he drops in during my final PPI. But
I don't see the question as an important one, mostly, I suppose,
because I have different reasons for what I believe than James reasons
for what he believes. And I'm pretty sure my reasons for believing are
quite different from what he asserts they are.
Anyway, if I need to know anything about the frequency, it's enough
for me to know that the explanations certain critics offer is not the
only possible one.
Joel, the non-apologist
James C. Miller
> The reason for the frequency of use of the phrase in question is
> something neither you nor I will likely know in this life.
This is a classic example of the "all or nothing" logical fallacy.
Actually, neither of us has to know beyond all reasonable doubt the
reason for the dramatic difference in frequency - all we have to have
and express an opinion is a reasonable argument. In this case, I
present a reasonable argument that the phrase's use in the BoM differs
significantly in frequency from its use in the BoM.
> If I
> remember, I might ask Mormon when he drops in during my final PPI.
I've noticed that some apologists try dismissiveness when confronted
with non faith promoting situations. Wouldn't a more effective
dismissal be simply to ignore this thread altogether? Besides,
civility is always more appropriate and pleasant than sarcasm.
> But
> I don't see the question as an important one, mostly, I suppose,
> because I have different reasons for what I believe than James reasons
> for what he believes. And I'm pretty sure my reasons for believing are
> quite different from what he asserts they are.
I believe that this question was important enough to you to motivate
you to take the time to write, edit, and send two separate posts about
it. And it's important enough to me to motivate me to write, edit and
send this reponse. I think it's important because some apologists
have brought up the phrase as a hebraicism to prove the truthfulness
of the BoM while I find that its BoM use differs significantly in
frequency from the Bible to suggest that it isn't a hebraicism, at
all. Indeed, I suggest that there are several reasonable explanations
for the difference and one of them is that it represents Joseph
Smith's attempts to make his writing sound Biblical. This would be
consistent with the phrase being Biblical, but used in the BoM far
more frequently in the Bible.
>
> Anyway, if I need to know anything about the frequency, it's enough
> for me to know that the explanations certain critics offer is not the
> only possible one.
I agree that there are several possible explanations. Please notice
that I have not used sarcasm to curtly dismiss the faith-promoting
explanations, but instead politely presented my alternatives.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
David Bowie
<snip>
: Similarly, in German, if a sentence starts with "es geschah, daß",
: this turns the remainder of the sentence into a subordinate clause,
: and what would otherwise have been the main verb gets pushed all
: the way to the end. This transformation of word order in subordi-
: nate clauses is perfectly normal in German, but to have it happen
: =all= the time would make reading of the text rather stressful.
Actually, there's good theoretical and psycholinguistic evidence that
verb-final clause structure is the primary clause structure in German--which
would mean that it may actually be a bit less stressful for native German
speakers to have lots and lots of verb-final clauses running around. (Of
course, subordinate clauses themselves can end up being kind of hairy to
deal with when they pile up one on top of the other, but that's a whole
nother issue.)
That sort of thing ties in indirectly with one of the bits that bother me
about the Book of Mormon translation process--an insistence on, in some
cases, an adherence to norms of the English text that don't make any sense
to carry into other languages' texts.
<snip>
David, who usually in English word order speaks
Joel Rees
> jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp (Joel Rees) wrote in message news:<vnll4hk...@news.supernews.com>...
> > The reason for the frequency of use of the phrase in question is
> > something neither you nor I will likely know in this life.
>
> This is a classic example of the "all or nothing" logical fallacy.
> Actually, neither of us has to know beyond all reasonable doubt the
> reason for the dramatic difference in frequency - all we have to have
> and express an opinion is a reasonable argument.
Actually, we don't even need that. Of course, it would be more polite
when one is judging another's opinion or argument to recognize that
one person's reasonable is another person's foolish. (And vice versa.)
> In this case, I
> present a reasonable argument that the phrase's use in the BoM differs
> significantly in frequency from its use in the BoM.
Do you present an argument in the "parameter" semantic of the word, or
in the "contention" semantic of the word? I really can't tell.
I do know that arguing means different things to different people, but
there is a huge difference between looking for things that are wrong
and looking for ways to make things more right.
The former appears easy, seems fun at first, but it tends to wear a
person out in the end. The hardest part about the latter is the
temptation to look aside, at things you can't do anything about. But
you can't do anything about those things anyway, so the easiness of
the former is entirely an illusion.
> > If I
> > remember, I might ask Mormon when he drops in during my final PPI.
>
> I've noticed that some apologists try dismissiveness when confronted
> with non faith promoting situations.
Dismissiveness?
> Wouldn't a more effective
> dismissal be simply to ignore this thread altogether?
Dismissal?
I think there is a huge communication gap between you and me. I am not
dismissing your inquiry, I'm just telling you that you can get your
own answer when it's important to you, and I'll get my answer when
it's important to me.
Why is that not being dismissive? Why is it not dismissive to
acknowledge that one person may like RC Cola and another Dr. Pepper,
while another may prefer a twist of apple cider vinegar (well
mothered) and a squeeze of lemon in a half-cup of clear water, and yet
all can enjoy a pause for refreshment together (if the former two are
patient while the latter mixes his).
In other words, the fact that it is not important to me should make
absolutely no difference to you, if it's really important to you.
> Besides,
> civility is always more appropriate and pleasant than sarcasm.
Sarcasm? I'm not being sarcastic here. I do expect Mormon to drop in
while I'm discussing my work during mortality with the Savior.
Perhaps you would see less sarcasm and dismissiveness if you could
allow us to actually believe the things we believe. (You can only
disallow it, of course, in your own perceptions.)
> > But
> > I don't see the question as an important one, mostly, I suppose,
> > because I have different reasons for what I believe than James reasons
> > for what he believes. And I'm pretty sure my reasons for believing are
> > quite different from what he asserts they are.
>
> I believe that this question was important enough to you to motivate
> you to take the time to write, edit, and send two separate posts about
> it.
No, the question is not important to me. Your being hung up on it is.
Was. You have apparently made your choice, I appear not to be able to
persuade you to re-think it. So I'll now leave it alone.
> ...
Joel
John S.Colton
[snip]
>> Would you expect it to be used at the same rate? This is a serious
>> question.
>
>Well, yes, of course. To be a hebraicism and thus a BoM proof, its
>use has to be noticeably similar to Hebrew. If it is not noticeably
>similar, it can't be a hebraicism and it can't be a BoM proof.
>
>I'm curious which way you're arguing. Are you arguing that it IS a
>hebraicism (a characteristic of ancient Hebrew) and thus a BoM proof,
>or are you arguing that it's NOT a hebraicism?
[snip]
Neither. I'm arguing against what I think you are saying, which is
"The usage of AICTP is evidence *against* the BoM being written in
Hebrew". If that's not what you're saying, then let's not worry about
it.
If it is what you're saying, then my final question for you is: are
English phrases are used at the same rate that they were hundreds of
years ago? If not, why would you expect the frequency of Hebrew
phrases to be the same rate over the course of centuries?
James C. Miller
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:43:08 -0000, James C. Miller wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >hebraicism (a characteristic of ancient Hebrew) and thus a BoM proof,
> >or are you arguing that it's NOT a hebraicism?
> [snip]
>
> Neither. I'm arguing against what I think you are saying, which is
> "The usage of AICTP is evidence *against* the BoM being written in
> Hebrew". If that's not what you're saying, then let's not worry about
> it.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that I do NOT
think the use of AICTP is evidence FOR the BoM havingc been written by
Hebrew speakers. I don't think AICTP is evidence of ANYTHING.
However, I have read several apologists claim that AICTP is a
hebraicism and thus a proof for the BoM. I reject that because the
frequency of use is so dramatically different than in either the OT or
the NT. As I've said before, I think, but cannot prove, that it was
just a way for Smith to make his manuscript sound biblical.
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
David Bowie
: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that I do NOT
: think the use of AICTP is evidence FOR the BoM havingc been written by
: Hebrew speakers. I don't think AICTP is evidence of ANYTHING.
Good. Then everybody on this ng agrees, and we can all stop posting on
this ridiculously boring thread (and related threads).
Glad that's been cleared up.
<snip>
David, swimming against the tide of USENET
Craig Olson
>
> "James C. Miller" <miller...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>
> : That's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that I do NOT
> : think the use of AICTP is evidence FOR the BoM havingc been written by
> : Hebrew speakers. I don't think AICTP is evidence of ANYTHING.
>
> Good. Then everybody on this ng agrees, and we can all stop posting on
> this ridiculously boring thread (and related threads).
Well, personally, I think the use of any term like AICTP is an indication
of an (unimaginative?) editor condensing material, without taking much
thought as to making readable literature.
In current English, the equivalent indications of condensation would be
"Then" or "Next" or even maybe "Later".
Consider this excerpt from 2 Ne:
And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea;
and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea;
and he did travel in the wilderness with his family ...
[Then,] when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent ...
[Next,] he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord ...
[Later,] he called the name of the river, Laman, ...
It reads (to me) like someone who is looking at a longer version of the events
and just skipping to the highlights. It leaves open the question of just *who*
is doing the editorial summarization (Nephi? Mormon? Joseph?), so I don't see
this as some ironclad proof of anything other than unimaginative editing.
> David, swimming against the tide of USENET
Craig, just going with the ridiculously boring flow, for a change
John S.Colton
[snip]
>That's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that I do NOT
>think the use of AICTP is evidence FOR the BoM havingc been written by
>Hebrew speakers. I don't think AICTP is evidence of ANYTHING.
Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you.
>However, I have read several apologists claim that AICTP is a
>hebraicism and thus a proof for the BoM.
[snip]
Who? I've not seen a single such claim.
John, just trying to make sure we don't have any strawmen around here
James C. Miller
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:03:26 -0000, James C. Miller wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >That's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that I do NOT
> >think the use of AICTP is evidence FOR the BoM havingc been written by
> >Hebrew speakers. I don't think AICTP is evidence of ANYTHING.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you.
>
> >However, I have read several apologists claim that AICTP is a
> >hebraicism and thus a proof for the BoM.
> [snip]
>
> Who? I've not seen a single such claim.
Try:
http://www.mormonfortress.com/changeb4.html
and look under "Hebraicisms"
James C. Miller
miller...@earthlink.net
John S.Colton
[snip]
>> >However, I have read several apologists claim that AICTP is a
>> >hebraicism and thus a proof for the BoM.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Who? I've not seen a single such claim.
>
>Try:
>
>http://www.mormonfortress.com/changeb4.html
>and look under "Hebraicisms"
Thanks for the reference! But also note that aside from arguing that
use of ICTP is an evidence that the BoM is true (with which I mainly
disagree), the author is also arguing that use of the phrase is *not*
an evidence that the BoM is false (with which I agree). Subtle
distinction between those two points.
John
thecaldwells
by the apostles-isn't even included in the New Testament-King James Version
although the Catholic New Testament includes a couple of the books left out.
The rest can be located in the Naghammadi Library and other places. The
council did its best to only include what it thought to be authentic and
pure.
The King James council did a wonderful job of excluding questionable and
possibly altered scripture and the translation is the most comprehensive as
far as practical use. I think they used the German direct translation of the
Hebrew scriptures among other versions to arrive at the finished product.
That being said, the New Testament is debated all the time among Christians.
It does bolster faith but so does the BOM (although to a much smaller
number). There is much disagreement over what Jesus taught, what the
Apostles taught, and everything else in the NT within many schools of
theology and with many that preach almost exclusively from it. There are
clearly things to wonder about as well- The conflicting records of Judas'
death and of Paul's vision. I particularly realize that one of Paul's
accounts is wrong. That does not weaken my belief that Paul was an apostle
of Jesus Christ or that the writers of the NT were inspired in their work.
The NT is a wonderful collection. I just happen to think that the BOM is a
wonderful collection of scripture as well.
-Richard
Might Be Me
"thecaldwells" <thecal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vp5bvdr...@news.supernews.com...
> James, much of the scripture that was written -to include what was written
> by the apostles-isn't even included in the New Testament-King James
Version
> although the Catholic New Testament includes a couple of the books left
out.
> The rest can be located in the Naghammadi Library and other places. The
> council did its best to only include what it thought to be authentic and
> pure.
What books are contained in the Catholic New Testament that are not included
in the King James translation?
> The King James council did a wonderful job of excluding questionable and
> possibly altered scripture and the translation is the most comprehensive
as
> far as practical use.
Of course, thoe who gavor nore recent translations, probably disagree with
you.
> I think they used the German direct translation of the
> Hebrew scriptures among other versions to arrive at the finished product.
What evidence is there of that?