musashi Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sometimes when I'm studying the scriptures I find myself struggling to fully grasp the meaning of certain passages because of the ancient styles of writing. Occasionally I have found it beneficial to read a passage from the KJV new testament and then to compare it with a version written in modern english. Our church leaders have said that the version of the Bible that LDS use is the KJV. Wouldn't it be great if our prophet now could do a translation into modern english? If it was the Lord's will then it would be done already, so I'll just trust in His wisdom. My question is - Why do you think that when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon that it was translated into such a traditional style of English? What are your opinions on why it was not translated into something a little more colloquial and current of that period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarbay Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 So we wouldn't be asking the same question you just asked about the Bible? Perhaps in President Smiths time they did talk the way he translated it. We don't know. I always wondered about that "adieu"(french word) thing but then he said any mistakes were his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 If it was the Lord's will then it would be done already, so I'll just trust in His wisdom.My question is - Why do you think that when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon that it was translated into such a traditional style of English? What are your opinions on why it was not translated into something a little more colloquial and current of that period? I think you might have just said it all with "If it was the Lord's will then it would be done already, so I'll just trust in His wisdom" Some times we just need to trust in His wisdom. Trust being the key word. With trust there is no questions asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Occasionally I have found it beneficial to read a passage from the KJV new testament and then to compare it with a version written in modern english. Our church leaders have said that the version of the Bible that LDS use is the KJV.In a different string Snow indicated to me that Mormons are not limited to the KJV. He said that it is true that the church only publishes the KJV, and so it has an unofficial favor, but that other translations are not officially any less canonical.At the official site's section on the Holy Bible, there is no reference to translation.http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.htmlSo, how comfortable would you be using a more modern translation?My two-cents: The New International Version is most popular amongst evangelicals. Those who prefer a more literal, word for word translation, favor the New American Standard Bible. And, for a really down-to-earth colloquial translation, try The Message. Most biblical scholars believe the the more modern translations are actually somewhat more accurate, in that they rely on a much larger collection of manuscripts that date back much closer to the original writings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Wouldn't it be great if our prophet now could do a translation into modern english? If it was the Lord's will then it would be done already, so I'll just trust in His wisdom. It's already been done. Grant Hardy has a "readers edition" from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/025202797...glance&n=283155My question is - Why do you think that when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon that it was translated into such a traditional style of English? What are your opinions on why it was not translated into something a little more colloquial and current of that period? To give the book an air of authority. If it would have been written in common English of the day, fewer people would have believed in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 While I was serving in England someone printed the Bible in Yorkshire tongue so that someone from there might understand it.....I never did hear if it became popular or not...just thought I would mention that for what its worth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 My question is - Why do you think that when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon that it was translated into such a traditional style of English? What are your opinions on why it was not translated into something a little more colloquial and current of that period?Joseph Smith's Bible was the King James Version. When thinking of scripture, Elizabethan English was what he was used to. It was natural for him to think Elizabethan when "translating" scripture.Obviously Nephi and Moroni and Mormon did not speak in Elizabethan so it has to be an artifact added by Joseph Smith. However, some people say that the KJV, though not the most accurate translation, best captures the cadence and pattern of ancient Hebraic prose and poety. Since the Nephites decended from the Israelites, maybe some of them wrote scpritural prose and poetry in the same style and so Joseph was inclinced or inspired to use the same language as the KJV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionHeart Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord. Perhaps the scriptures are a similar situation.So we wouldn't be asking the same question you just asked about the Bible? Perhaps in President Smiths time they did talk the way he translated it. We don't know. I always wondered about that "adieu"(french word) thing but then he said any mistakes were his own.As far as the french word in the B.o.M., here is my opinion on it:It says in the B.o.M. that because of a lack of writing space on the plates, they had to write in a more efficient language. Therefore, rather than translating letter for letter, one character on the plates might have only translated an expression, which might have taken a thousand english words to explain. The plates gave the expression and left it up to Joseph Smith to express it in words. Now the word "Adieu" translates from french to english as saying "Goodbye" in a permanent sense. So there is not an english word for "Adieu". It takes a few words to express it in the english language. So having that word in the B.O.M. would not neccesarily be a mistake, just a simpler way of expressing "Goodbye forever". And if you think about it, if he would have used "Goodbye forever" wouldn't that have been lame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musashi Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't know... Personally I think "goodbye forever" sounds pretty cool. The meaning of "adieu" is a farewell, as well as a "May God's grace be with you" kind of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord.Why is 1600's Elizabethan English any greater sign of respect than say 20th Century New Englandish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musashi Posted February 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If an angel visited an ancient prophet he would have spoken to him in Hebrew. If an angel visited Joseph Smith he would have spoken to him in English. If one visited Elder Kikuchi he would speak to him in Japanese. That's right isn't it? They speak to the prophets in the language that they understand. Maybe Joseph Smith was such a religiously minded young man that the language that he had always studied in the Holy Bible was basic to him, and maybe God just deemed that that old english would be more suitable even though it is not used today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarbay Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If an angel visited an ancient prophet he would have spoken to him in Hebrew. If an angel visited Joseph Smith he would have spoken to him in English. If one visited Elder Kikuchi he would speak to him in Japanese. That's right isn't it?They speak to the prophets in the language that they understand. Maybe Joseph Smith was such a religiously minded young man that the language that he had always studied in the Holy Bible was basic to him, and maybe God just deemed that that old english would be more suitable even though it is not used today.I think you hit the nail on the head there. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 <div class='quotemain'>If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord.Why is 1600's Elizabethan English any greater sign of respect than say 20th Century New Englandish?You beat me to it. Anyway, "Yeah... what Snow asked." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionHeart Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 <div class='quotemain'>If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord.Why is 1600's Elizabethan English any greater sign of respect than say 20th Century New Englandish? I can't answer that. All I know about it is just what I read in that book. Perhaps it has something to do with how the languages evolve. For example, the word 'gay' used to mean happy. What it means now really bothers my grandmother. I think she had some friends named Gay. Perhaps the Lord sees it as being more respectful to speak to him in a more original form of our languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 ...For example, the word 'gay' used to mean happy....It still does, it just has an additional meaning depending on the context it is used in.gayadj. 1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 <div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>If you will notice, when people pray, they try to speak the same english as the bible uses. I read in a book called "True To The Faith" that the reason people do so, is out of respect for the Lord.Why is 1600's Elizabethan English any greater sign of respect than say 20th Century New Englandish?You beat me to it. Anyway, "Yeah... what Snow asked."I once wondered about that too, until I saw the effect on me.For instance, “setting apart” a particular language while conversing with God helps me to think of that language as “holy”, and using that language when conversing with God helps me to have more respect while conversing.And btw, there was a time when I was very rebellious about using that language with God, because I thought I knew better than those who agreed with Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bizabra Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 So we wouldn't be asking the same question you just asked about the Bible? Perhaps in President Smiths time they did talk the way he translated it. We don't know. I always wondered about that "adieu"(french word) thing but then he said any mistakes were his own.BIZ: People did not "talk the way he translated" back in the early 1800's. We DO know, because we have many books, letters, and writings of all sorts to look at so that we know they spoke normal english at the time. Smith was trying to make his book sound like scripture, so used archaic sounding language to do it. Nobody but Quakers spoke in a "biblical" fashion at the time.Willikers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriskriechel Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 There is a series of books written by David J. Ridges that might help you. They are called "Your Study of The Book of Mormon Made Easier". He has a whole series of them for the different books. Right now I am using his Old Testament series for Gospel Doctrine. He has been a CES teacher, Know Your Religion teacher at BYU, and a curriculum writer for Sunday School, seminary, and institute manuals. He really helps you understand the language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.