Adieu

“Adieu” in the Book of Mormon

From the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Message Board

15 February 2008, 08:21 PM

Krispy Kreme King

Group: Pundit
Posts: 6517
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 07:39 PM)

Is that how you respond to a legitimate question about the use of a French word in a supposedly ancient Hebrew manuscript. Typical denial tactic.

Stunning.

The adieu argument is, quite simply, the silliest anti-Mormon argument I've ever run across, in years and years of encountering silly anti-Mormon arguments.

With this, Carmella makes my day.

But I shouldn't just laugh. I should try to help her. So here goes:

Carmella. The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation. Translations can be done from any language into any language, and translators are free to use any appropriate words they possess to render what they see or hear in the original language.

Here's an example:

Arabic: Fataha al-baab.

German: Er öffnete die Tür.

English: He opened the door.

Each sentence is perfectly fine in its language. Each quite accurately translates the other two. The fact that I can translate the Arabic sentence into German no more means that there is German in the original Arabic than the fact that I can translate it into English means that the Arabic sentence contains English.

Now, I could, if I chose, translate the Arabic sentence a bit differently. I could, for instance, render it as "He opened the portal." Either door or portal works just fine. Choosing one or the other doesn't change the Arabic word from which it is translated, any more than choosing to render the Arabic baab by Tür rather than door alters the Arabic word.

If you look up the word adieu in the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find that it's attested in English since at least the fourteenth century. You can even sing the old song "Red River Valley" to yourself, and you'll hit upon the line "Do not hasten to bid me adieu." The word adieu was, manifestly, in Joseph Smith's vocabulary. There is nothing wrong or problematic in his using it to render a farewell contained in the text on the plates.

I apologize for the viciousness of this note. Your remarkable courage and fortitude in the face of onslaughts from monsters like me does you great credit.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32904&view=findpost&p=1208366840

Daniel Peterson

15 February 2008, 08:55 PM

Post #388

Krispy Kreme King

Group: Pundit
Posts: 6517
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 08:25 PM)

Frankly, it is an obvious anachronism, regardless of your attempt to explain it away. The usage of French in what is supposed to be an ancient Hebrew document would be laughed at by any scholar except those found at BYU, and then even some of those are snickering secretly.

Poor Carmella. Your objection would be laughed at by any scholar in the world including those at BYU. (I'm laughing as I write.)

You plainly don't get it. But I'm a teacher by trade, so I'll try again.

Here's a German passage:

"Auf Wiedersehen," sagte er. "Vielleicht sehen wir uns wieder nach dem Krieg."

Here's one way of translating it into English:

"Goodbye," he said. "Perhaps we'll see each other again after the war."

Here's another way of rendering it into English:

"Farewell," said he. "Maybe we'll see each other again after the war."

Now, neither farewell nor goodbye occurs in the original German sentence. Nor does perhaps. Nor does maybe. These sentences are translations.

But there are still other ways in which I could render an equivalent English sentence. Here's one:

"Adieu," he said. "We may possibly see each other again after the war."

Again, that's entirely legitimate. And, since the word adieu has been in the English language since at least the mid-fourteenth century, it's quite legitimately English. And yet, once more, you can scan the original German sentence for hours and hours and hours, and even use an electronic microscope on it, and you still won't be able to find either the word adieu or the word possibly anywhere in it. That's one of the really amazing things about translations!

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 08:25 PM)

Come now, sir, let us reason together. Were you to find a Spanish word in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, wouldn't you be a little suspicious about the origin of that work? You know, "adios Tut."

I think you're probably having us on.

Pretty funny, I'll admit.

Still, I'll play along with you just a bit longer.

Nobody has suggested that the word adieu occurs on the plates. We say (and we have good evidence to back this up) that it occurs in English editions of the Book of Mormon, which, we say, represent a translation fo the original text. Finding a Spanish word in the Book of the Dead would, it's true, be very strange. But finding a Spanish word in a translation of the Book of the Dead would be perfectly natural.

Have you ever noticed, by the way, that the first three words of the King James Bible are . . . English? But English didn't exist when Genesis 1:1 was purportedly written! Does this prove that Genesis is a fraud? Is the word in an anachronism? No, silly! Of course not! The King James Bible is a translation!

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 08:45 PM)

If you read Whitmer's description I posted above of the translation process used by Smith, you will see that the French word had to appear to him, as the book was supposedly translated word for word, with God's approval for each word translated.

Adieu, poor thing, is an English word, as well as a French word. It's in English dictionaries. It's attested in English since the 1300s.

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 08:45 PM)

And, Smith called it the most correct book in the world, so Mormons need to accept the fact that ancient Hebrews somehow used French, a language that did not exist at the time of the Nephite civilization.

Why on earth would we need to accept the notion that ancient Hebrews used French?

What a practical joker you are!

Pretty soon, you'll be telling us that those who read English Bible translations must "accept the fact" that the ancient Hebrews spoke English!

QUOTE(Carmella @ Feb 15 2008, 08:45 PM)

On the other hand, they could agree that Smith wrote the book, and made a big mistake by putting French words into the mouth's of Hebrews, which is the logical conclusion a non-Mormon draws from the evidence.

Wow. Maybe their defective reasoning skills explain why they're non-Mormons!

Thanks for the chuckle, Carmella!

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32904&view=findpost&p=1208366896

Bill Hamblin

15 February 2008, 08:57 PM

Post #390

Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Group: Pundit
Posts: 938
Joined: 14-October 04
Member No.: 1026

This entire discussion is a monumental violation of Hamblin Rule of Apologetics #1.

What I find shocking, however, is that the CARMelites have yet to realize the greatest linguistic anachronism of them all, which decisively disproves the BOM:

There are English words in the BOM translation. Do Mormons really expect us to believe that English existed at the time of Nephi?

Those Mormons are such idiots!!!!

--------------------

I condemn DCP for all of his evils!

Hamblin Rule of Apologetics #1: "Never argue with a moron."
Hamblin Rule of Apologetics #2: "Never argue with someone who is smarter than you."
Hamblin Rule of Apologetics #3: "Make sure obeying rules 1 and 2 doesn't amount to the same thing."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32904&view=findpost&p=1208366901

Daniel Peterson

15 February 2008, 09:14 PM

Post #403

Krispy Kreme King

Group: Pundit
Posts: 6517
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407