Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
I would agree with helping to learn a language. I learned Portuguese on my mission and the book of Mormon definitely assisted with that. But in addition to learning the language, studying the book of Mormon side by side with the English and Portuguese version helped to further clarify intentions or meanings in the scriptures. Some words might not be as clearly understood in English but there were times where the Portuguese translation offered further clarification based on how that portion of the text was translated.alaris wrote: ↑February 11th, 2018, 1:26 pm NIV Book of Mormon!
In all seriousness I do not believe so. We believe that the more sacred texts are translated, the more the original meaning is lost. I recommend sticking to it to expand your English vocabulary to capture the original meaning.
Studying the scriptures in Spanish helped me learn a foreign language even though the tenses and vocabulary were quite different.
This is pretty cool! However, I only made it about two verses before I ran into trouble:iskatel wrote: ↑March 19th, 2018, 10:33 am The Timothy B Wilson version can be read on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_o ... h_Version)
There are no hieroglyphics in the Book of Mormon text. Nibley explains what this verse is actually saying in Lehi in the Desert:1 Ne 1:2
I'm writing as my father did, in Egyptian (hieroglyphics), but writing according to Jewish learning (reformed Egyptian engravings). I know this record is true, which I engrave upon metal plates I've made.
Demotic or hieratic Egyptian characters, but not hieroglyphics. More to the point, Nephi is telling us he's going to quote from his father heavily, "in his language", or using his own words. Which he does. Also, hieroglyphics are hugely inefficient for writing in cramped space. That would not have been economical at all. Even Hebrew would have been more efficient than hieroglyphics!It was common in ancient as in modern languages to use one and the same word (e. g. English, "speech," Egyptian "ra") both for "utterance" and "language," though this common Book of Mormon usage is not found in Hebrew. When Nephi says, "after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God" (1 Nephi 1:15), he is not telling us what language his father spoke, but giving notice that he is quoting or paraphrasing an actual speech of his father. Likewise when he says, "I make a record in the language of my father" (1 Nephi 1:2), he says that he is going to quote or paraphrase a record actually written by his father (1 Nephi 1:16). He explains that his father wrote the record in Egyptian though it dealt with Jewish matters, but he never affirms that Egyptian was his father's native tongue. The clause in 1 Nephi 1:2 which begins, "which consists of . . ." does not refer back to "language" or "father," of course, but to "record." The other two are syntactically possible but don't make sense: a language does not consist of a language, but a record does. The sentence is awkward English, but like many others in the Book of Mormon closely resembles the familiar Semitic hal construction, and could be read, "I make a record, in the language of my father, consisting of the learning of the Jews," etc. Joseph Smith did not dictate the punctuation of the Book of Mormon.
Some have maintained that the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew but with Egyptian characters. But Moroni (Mormon 9:32—34) observes that the Nephites have altered their writing of Egyptian to conform to their way of speaking it, and that "the Hebrew hath been altered by us also," with the result that "none other people knoweth our language." Their language was neither Egyptian nor Hebrew. Moroni appreciates the accuracy and clarity of old Hebrew, which is no longer spoken by his people (Mormon 9:33), and writes reluctantly "in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian," simply because that takes up less space. Now Egyptian could be written in less space than Hebrew because in Lehi's day demotic was actually a shorthand, extremely cramped and abbreviated; and it was a shorthand for the very reason that it was thoroughly idiomatic, that is, peculiarly adapted to the sounds and thought processes of one language and one language only. It could be used very economically for writing Egyptian, but not for any other language.
I tried it and found that many chapters aren't written yet, no problem, thanks for your effort to help.iskatel wrote: ↑March 19th, 2018, 10:33 am The Timothy B Wilson version can be read on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_o ... h_Version)
I saw vision before that "hieroglyphic is the language of the secrets of God", any way I'll quote verses from the official site of the book of Mormon.iWriteStuff wrote: ↑March 20th, 2018, 9:34 amThis is pretty cool! However, I only made it about two verses before I ran into trouble:iskatel wrote: ↑March 19th, 2018, 10:33 am The Timothy B Wilson version can be read on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_o ... h_Version)
There are no hieroglyphics in the Book of Mormon text. Nibley explains what this verse is actually saying in Lehi in the Desert:1 Ne 1:2
I'm writing as my father did, in Egyptian (hieroglyphics), but writing according to Jewish learning (reformed Egyptian engravings). I know this record is true, which I engrave upon metal plates I've made.Demotic or hieratic Egyptian characters, but not hieroglyphics. More to the point, Nephi is telling us he's going to quote from his father heavily, "in his language", or using his own words. Which he does. Also, hieroglyphics are hugely inefficient for writing in cramped space. That would not have been economical at all. Even Hebrew would have been more efficient than hieroglyphics!It was common in ancient as in modern languages to use one and the same word (e. g. English, "speech," Egyptian "ra") both for "utterance" and "language," though this common Book of Mormon usage is not found in Hebrew. When Nephi says, "after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God" (1 Nephi 1:15), he is not telling us what language his father spoke, but giving notice that he is quoting or paraphrasing an actual speech of his father. Likewise when he says, "I make a record in the language of my father" (1 Nephi 1:2), he says that he is going to quote or paraphrase a record actually written by his father (1 Nephi 1:16). He explains that his father wrote the record in Egyptian though it dealt with Jewish matters, but he never affirms that Egyptian was his father's native tongue. The clause in 1 Nephi 1:2 which begins, "which consists of . . ." does not refer back to "language" or "father," of course, but to "record." The other two are syntactically possible but don't make sense: a language does not consist of a language, but a record does. The sentence is awkward English, but like many others in the Book of Mormon closely resembles the familiar Semitic hal construction, and could be read, "I make a record, in the language of my father, consisting of the learning of the Jews," etc. Joseph Smith did not dictate the punctuation of the Book of Mormon.
Some have maintained that the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew but with Egyptian characters. But Moroni (Mormon 9:32—34) observes that the Nephites have altered their writing of Egyptian to conform to their way of speaking it, and that "the Hebrew hath been altered by us also," with the result that "none other people knoweth our language." Their language was neither Egyptian nor Hebrew. Moroni appreciates the accuracy and clarity of old Hebrew, which is no longer spoken by his people (Mormon 9:33), and writes reluctantly "in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian," simply because that takes up less space. Now Egyptian could be written in less space than Hebrew because in Lehi's day demotic was actually a shorthand, extremely cramped and abbreviated; and it was a shorthand for the very reason that it was thoroughly idiomatic, that is, peculiarly adapted to the sounds and thought processes of one language and one language only. It could be used very economically for writing Egyptian, but not for any other language.
So what's my point? We got only two verses in before the interpretations of man took over. Still, it's a very interesting project. I think one would have to know a whole lot more about ancient languages, their structure, and some of the uses of ancient words before one could attempt such an endeavor.
Greek is the source language of Gospel regardless the original ones, and like that with the book of Mormon, the English of Joseph Smith is the source language of the book regardless the original languages.5tev3 wrote: ↑March 20th, 2018, 11:37 am I got the "Easy to Read Book of Mormon" for my kids. I figured if those illustrated ones that contain even LESS of the stories are suitable for younger ages then why not the "Easy to Read Book of Mormon"? I also have a copy of the "Good News Bible" for each. Better for them to at least be familiar with the stories and principles generally than to be put off by a sometimes almost incomprehensible King James English. Some verses in the KJV are poetic and beautiful but on the whole, I dislike it. I prefer the New American Standard Bible generally and I use other translations on a verse by verse basis where the context is a little confusing. The Book of Mormon itself is much easier to read than the KJV, and I think by the time you are a teenager you can handle it just fine.
Whatever works for you at the time, that's my opinion. As you progress in knowledge and ability you can branch out and explore other things like learning Greek and Hebrew if you'd like. Better than nothing at all.
Correct. For those of us who don't understand Greek, we have to rely on the translating abilities of others. The original language of the Book of Mormon was Hebrew and there are many Hebraisms in the text that survived translation. While Joseph Smith's translation is the only physical source text we have, we can learn quite a bit by comparing Old Testament language with Book of Mormon language. There are many approaches to reading a text.
I can see why this would make sense. Our language and vocabulary is so limiting, but it seems like a hieroglyph can contain so many more layers of meaning. I'm pretty ignorant in the matter, but it seems like that would be the case.