Joseph F. Smith had a classical understanding of time, and that is important

In 1918 Joseph F. Smith had a revelation on the Savior's visit to the spirit world and the redemption of the dead. Leading up to this revelation he had many questions weighing on his mind brought on by recent family deaths and his own reckoning with mortality.

While explaining his thinking leading up to the revelation Joseph F. Smith said,

25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews.... 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection; 28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison... and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time. (D&C 138:25-28)

Part of what made Joseph F. Smith ask his questions in the first place was the fact that he could not see anyway for the Savior to have sufficient time to preach to so many people who had already died. Without realizing it Joseph F. Smith had certain implicit metaphysical assumptions that determined what kinds of questions he would ask and what kinds of answers he would look for. Joseph F. Smith operated with a certain subconscious understanding of time that created a paradox that necessitated an answer.

If Joseph F. Smith had lived much later in our day and had asked the same question, "How could the Savior do more in three days than he had done in three years on Earth?" he would have different options available to answer this question regarding time. But for him, this question presented an unresolvable paradox. If members of the Church did not have the benefit of Joseph F. Smith's revelation and asked the same question today, a number of people would probably invoke the principles of relativity and relative time.

Possible answers could have included things like, "The flow of time is different in the spirit world.", or "Time is only something relevant to mortality, so the Savior was not bound by time constraints in the spirit world." Any of these answers would have lessened the urgency of resolving the three day time constraint on the Savior, and could have possibly lead Joseph F. Smith to consider his questions differently, or even a different set of questions.

Because of the proliferation of Einstein's theories of relativity we have a very different fundamental understanding of time than people previously had. Generally we do not even realize the immense difference in how we collectively understand time compared to even 100 years ago. The idea that time can flow at different rates, or that time is relative to the observer, has so permeated our society that major Hollywood movies can use the idea as a crucial plot point and we do not even consider how strange a concept it is for time to flow differently or fail to grasp the relative nature of time. Even the concept of time travel is a relatively modern concept that we do not realize entirely depends on certain crucial ontological concepts of time that have only entered our collective consciousness in the past 100 years.

For Joseph F. Smith his subconscious concept of time worked very differently from ours. He was not acculturated to a relative or even a dimensional understanding of time. For him time was the same for everyone, everywhere including the spirit world, and, even though it was subconscious and unintentional, how he understood time was central to the paradox that he faced. If he had a different subconscious concept of time then his approach to the question of how did the Savior accomplish in three days what he did not manage to do in three years would have turned out differently. Perhaps he would not have pondered the question in the same way, or he would have gone looking in different directions for different answers to resolve the issues that weighed on his mind.

My point is, when Joseph F. Smith was faced with certain questions, the ones that were the most paradoxical for him and presented the greatest challenge, were the ones that were only present because of how he subconsciously viewed time. The implicit cultural assumptions he unintentionally held placed boundaries on the kinds of questions he would ask, and the kinds of answers he sought. His ontology (his fundamental understanding of the nature of existence) informed the structure of the questions and paradoxes he faced.

In this case the unstated, and unintentional, prepositions of Joseph F. Smith lead him to a question that could be answered by revelation. In fact, his assumptions about the nature of time made his questioning possible. If he had a different understanding of time then he may not have been forced to reckon with his uncertainty in the same way. So his subconscious assumptions on the nature of time were beneficial and greatly simplified the issue he was considering. But it does not always turn out that way.

Quite often we are faced with paradoxes or questions we cannot find an answer for. Frequently the paradox only exists because of the subconscious, unintentional choices we have made in understanding the world. Many times I see people of faith asking some form of the question, "How does XYZ work if ABC?" or, "How can XYZ be true when ABC is true?" For them these are paradoxical questions for which there is no solution. But quite often the paradox only exists because of unstated assumptions they have made without even realizing it. Many such questions, such as the relationship between science and religion, are entirely dependent on subconscious assumptions we have made regarding the nature of science, scripture, authority, and revelation (not to mention epistemology, language, metaphysics, and God himself).

Sometimes the answer to someone's question simply requires the right information with an acceptable explanation. But other times the paradox lies entirely in unstated assumptions the person has made. These are the most difficult to address, because recognizing our own unstated assumptions about reality, and identifying them as the source of our confusion, is perhaps one of the most difficult human tasks in existence. It is easier to change someone's behavior than it is to make them realize that the intractable paradoxes that seemingly have no resolution are the result of unintentional assumptions they have made about the nature of reality itself. And the most difficult of these already difficult conflicts are the ones that are most closely bound to someone's identity.

In summary, I have used the example of Joseph F. Smith and the questions he faced about the spirit world to point out certain assumptions he had about the nature of time that may be very different from our assumptions today. Using this, I introduced the idea that the assumptions we unintentionally and subconsciously make can, in part, determine the types of questions we ask, and what we might consider to be an intractable paradox. Some questions can be answered through discovering new information, but other more paradoxical questions can only be resolved by considering what underlying assumptions we have unintentionally made about reality. Addressing these more paradoxical questions is a difficult endeavor that takes patience, experience, and practice. But by first recognizing that these unstated assumptions exist we can be more aware of assumptions that make some questions seemingly unanswerable, and ultimately give us a path towards resolving these paradoxes. Sometimes finding the answer to a question requires realizing that we are asking the wrong question.

Questions to Ask Before Asking Questions About Genesis

 A few questions people have posted online recently have prompted me to write this. This started out as a response to someone's thoughts on reconciling the story of the creation in Genesis with what we are figuring out from modern science.

 Before asking any questions about Genesis it is best to first ask yourself a few questions.

1. Who wrote the Bible?

More specifically, who wrote the book of Genesis? The easiest thing to do is assume that it was Moses. But how does that fit with what we know from an LDS perspective? In the Pearl of Great Price the Book of Moses is Joseph Smith's "translation" of Genesis chapters 1-6 up to verse 13. So the Joseph Smith translation took 5 and 1/2 chapters in Genesis and expanded them into 8 chapters for the Book of Moses. There are a couple of different ways of looking at this.

The material added by Joseph Smith could be divinely inspired or mandated material added to the original text by Moses. Or it could be material that originally was in the book written by Moses and later editors removed it when writing the "Reader's Digest condensed" version of Genesis. Either way the implication is that just the text from Genesis was not considered complete and additional revelation was needed.

This all of course assumes that Moses was the one who wrote the version that we have in Genesis. If you start looking into that question just realize that the answer gets very complex very quickly, and it does nothing to make the question "Who wrote the Bible?" any easier.

From the Book of Moses we learn that what was written about the creation and the Garden of Eden was shown to Moses in a vision. The story of the Garden of Eden was not written down by Adam. The story of the flood wasn't written down by Noah. If we assume that Moses wrote Genesis, and there are arguments that he may not have (or there may have been many editorial revisions), then whoever wrote Genesis in the form that we have now was writing 1,000-4,000 years after the events in the Book of Genesis. 

In so many ways the question of who wrote the Bible leads to the next major question that you have to ask.

2. What language was the Bible written in?

Anyone who has learned a second language knows that translation is not always as simple and straight forward as you might think. For many years my dad taught Spanish and something he always told his students was, "Spanish is not translated English!"

Yes, words like "que" are usually translated into English as "what". But "que" does not mean "what". The word "que" has its own meaning and use in Spanish that does not always correspond to "what" in English.

But it gets more complex from there. In most universities, and even in some high schools, students are required to take a few classes of a foreign language. In some cases taking advanced math classes counts towards the foreign language credit. This actually makes sense because as anyone who has suffered through several math classes knows, math is a foreign language. You have to learn how to read, write, and speak math. It's deceptive because math can use all English words and numbers, yet still be a completely foreign language.

The same is true of science. Science has its own language. Many people are completely unaware of this because if you pick up a book on physics or chemistry there will be mostly English words in there (or Spanish words in Spanish speaking countries, or Mandarin words in China, or etc.). But learning the language of modern science is literally like learning a foreign language.

So this brings us back to the question of what language was the Bible written in. Was it written in English? Why not? Other than the obvious fact that English didn't exist yet. Back when Moses was alive alphabets were still being invented!

Not only did Moses not write the Book of Genesis in English, but God didn't even speak to Moses in English! God spoke in a language that Moses understood! ("well duh qleap42, get to the point.")

God didn't speak to Moses in modern English because its not something Moses would have understood. In the exact same way, God didn't speak to Moses in the language of modern science. He spoke to Moses in a language that Moses could understand. Many people will say that if God had shown Moses the creation in vision, then God had to have shown Moses "the correct" way creation happened. Anything else would mean God was deceiving Moses. 

But these things were shown to Moses in a vision. Lehi in his vision of the tree of life saw the love of God as a tree with fruit on it. The vanity of the world was a great and spacious building without foundation. Did God deceive Lehi by representing "the love of God" as fruit on a tree? Or vanity as a "great and spacious building without foundation"? In the Book of John's Revelation, John saw many things, all of which were symbolic. Did God deceive John by showing him symbolic events about the end of the world?

Furthermore, what is the "correct" scientific understanding that God is supposed to have shown to Moses to not deceive him? The scientific understanding during the 18th dynasty in Egypt? Or was it the science of 7th century BC Babylon? The science of 3rd century BC Greece? 3rd century AD Rome? 11th century China? 16th century Europe? Science of the 19th century? The 20th, or the 21st? Perhaps better the 22nd? Or the 31st?

It's awfully presumptuous of us to think that God should have explained things to Moses in a way that Moses couldn't understand just so that we could. It's awfully presumptuous to think that we currently understand the universe correctly. That the way we see things is the way God sees them. It's awfully presumptuous to think that God can only explain things to people in a way that fits with our understanding of reality. Anything else is wrong and would mean God is deceiving them. That's an awfully prideful way of looking at things.

In the Doctrine and Covenants it mentions that in the last days everything will be reveled, including how the earth was made and the power by which it came to be. An interesting corollary of that is the idea that how the earth was made has not been revealed! That means the story in Genesis is not the story of the literal creation of the world, but symbols in a vision given to Moses so that he could understand. In that way God taught Moses how he, Moses, sits in relation to God. When Moses saw that he realized "that man is nothing, which thing [Moses] never had supposed."

Perhaps we should keep that in mind as we use science to learn things about the universe and how vast it is. When we consider the size and the true scope of reality that we are just now beginning to understand through science, we learn things we never thought possible. The size and scope of the universe is something that I literally deal with on a daily basis. Whenever I see someone, especially Latter-day Saints, insist the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that the earth was created in six 24 hour periods, I just think about just how big the universe really is. I think about how complex it is, from the creation of elements, the formation of stars and galaxies, the complexities of nuclear reactions, neutron stars, gravitational collapse, supernovas, neutron star mergers, basic chemistry, the time it took life to evolve, the complexities of life, the intricacies of evolution, evolutionary niches, the complex reactions that govern our bodies, the chaotic neuron cascades in our brains, not to mention the complexity of history, language, science, culture, and human societies. And there at the center of it all a God who knows and understands it all. Whose hand can hold millions of earths like this. Who watches as millions of earth come into being and millions pass away. God is someone who can know all that, and wants to teach us all of that, but first we have to learn how to understand what He is saying.

In all the vastness of creation it is awfully presumptuous of us to presume that we know how God made the earth because we read something in a book and assumed that we understood what it was saying.

Before we ask questions from Genesis, perhaps we should ask ourselves some questions.

Faith is the Fundamental Substance of Reality

Something we do without realizing it is to interpret the scriptures and our faith through the lens of our cultural background. In our culture we are strongly influenced by Protestant theology. I sometimes joke that in the US everyone is a Protestant, even the Catholics. What I mean by that is we have been so thoroughly immersed in Protestant ways of thinking that we don't even realize we are doing it.

One of the places this shows up is how we talk about faith and knowledge. Because of our culture we are making implicit assumptions about what faith is and what it means to know something. Given those fundamental assumptions it is natural for someone to come to the conclusions, or ask the questions that you did.

Let me give an example of how we can unconsciously make an assumption that can lead to a paradox.

There is something called the "heap paradox". Suppose you have a heap of sand. In this particular heap there are 15,000,000 grains of sand. If you take a single grain of sand from the heap so that you now only have 14,999,999 grains, is it still a heap?

Any rational person would look at the sand sitting in a pile and say, "Yes. That is a heap of sand."

Now you take away another grain so that you have 14,999,998 grains. Is it still a heap? It should be.

Now you keep taking away single grains of sand until there are only 3 left. Can 3 grains of sand make a heap? Any rational person would look at it and say you need to get your eyes checked if you call 3 grains of sand a "heap of sand".

So at what point did the "heap of sand" turn into "not a heap of sand"? You could say that 15,000,000 grains were a heap. You could say that 1,500,000 grains were a heap. But at some point you get down to a minimum number and it stops being a heap. So, at what point did your "heap of sand" turn into "not a heap of sand"?

The inability to determine that is the "heap paradox", and it cannot be resolved.

But there was a problem with our mental exercise. We made a mistake and we didn't even realize it. And that mistake created the paradox.

By definition the number of things in a "heap" is undefined. Yes we can take a heap of sand and count the number of grains and get 12,749,873 grains. But the exact number isn't what makes it a heap. We use the word "heap" to mean a large, unknown, and not easily counted pile of things. The fact that we happen to know the number of things in the heap is unrelated to whether or not we call it a heap.

So, in the heap paradox we subtly shifted the definition of "heap" to include an exact value. Without realizing it we created the paradox.

A similar thing has happened in our culture with words like "faith" and "know". Over hundreds of years our understanding has drifted so that, while similar, we are missing something that was present in the original definition of the word we translate as "faith", and what it means to "know" something.

When Hebrews 11:1 is translated into English, because of hundreds of years of Protestant theology, we run into a paradox. In the original Greek the verse is,

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.

This can correctly be translated as,

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (King James Version)

But there are other ways of translating this. For example,

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (New International Version)

or,

Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see. (New Living Translation)

or,

To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. (Good News Translation)

or,

Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. (Christian Standard Bible)

In the KJV the word that is translated as substance is "ὑπόστασις" (hypostasis). In Greek the word hypostasis literally means "to stand (-stasis) under (hypo-)". It means it is the thing that supports or is the source of everything. In philosophy hypostasis is the fundamental substance of reality. It is the thing that makes up everything.

But it can also mean to possess a claim, or to have title (or a deed) to a guaranteed agreement. It entitles someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement. (We still use this idea in modern English. If someone has a legal claim that can be heard in court, we say they "have standing". They have standing under the law to claim something such as property, or redress of wrongs.)

So another way of (very loosely) translating Hebrews 11:1 could be,

Our faithfulness gives us standing to actively wait for the proof of things that we cannot see.

Or it could be translated (again very loosely) as,

Our faith is the fundamental substance of reality that we trust gives proof of the things we cannot see [such as God].

So, how does that change the way we talk about faith and what it means "to have faith"? That is the question.

The Body of the Church is a Temple

In the Church of Jesus Christ we quote 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 to show that we should be respectful to our bodies and not "defile" them. It is a scripture mastery scripture in Seminary, and some of us could quote them from memory. They are the basis of the teaching that our bodies are temples of God and you shouldn't "defile" them with tattoos, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or fornication, an idea that is drilled into the heads of our youth.

But do we really understand these verses? Let's take a closer look at them.

In the King James Version 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 reads as,

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

And 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 reads,

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

A simple reading of these supports the idea that our bodies are temples of God, but if we look at the original Greek we can see an entirely different meaning.

In English when we are talking to someone we use the pronoun "you". And if we are talking to more than one person we also use the pronoun "you". English does not have a formal way to differentiate 2nd person singular from 2nd person plural. In other languages there are two different words (for example, "usted" and "ustedes" in Spanish), or two different verb forms to differentiate singular from plural. Greek has different forms for singular and plural 2nd person.

When these verses are translated from Greek the difference between singular and plural pronouns, verbs, and nouns is lost. To clear this up here are the same verses again (using the NRSV translation), with pronouns, verbs, and nouns explicitly labeled as plural or singular.

Do you (plural) not know that you (p) are God’s temple (singular) and that God’s Spirit (s) dwells in you (p)? If anyone destroys God’s temple (s), God will destroy that person. For God’s temple (s) is holy, and you (p) are that temple (s).

And

Or do you (p) not know that your (p) body (s) is a temple (s) of the Holy Spirit (s) within you (p), which you (p) have from God, and that you (p) are not your (p) own? For you (p) were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your (p) body (s).

In these verses Paul is addressing multiple people (plural "you") and calls multiple people to all together be a single temple. Also that multiple people have a single "body" which is a single "temple". In this sense he is not talking about everyone's physical body, but Paul is talking about the "body" of the church. The point that Paul was making is that the body of the congregation is a "temple" of God, and that the Holy Spirit dwells among the congregation, not within the physical bodies of the individual members.

Understanding these verses in this way changes how we interpret them and how we apply them to ourselves. This means that we are being exhorted to not defile the body of the church, not our own bodies. This means that the congregation of the church all together is the temple of God, and not our individual bodies. The difference comes from the fundamental rules of English and how the original Greek is translated.

Try a Different Translation

If you are anything like me sometimes you are reading the Bible and come across verses that just don't make sense. No matter how many times you read them they seem like an impenetrable mystery. So why is it that the Bible can be so clear in some cases and not in others, even within the same book.

I have learned that when I come across those passages there is something that I am missing, some social understanding, or history, or cultural perspective that is key to understanding the passage. Many times the key to understanding a passage is to read it in the original language. But if you are not feeling up to learning Greek and Hebrew I would suggest using one or more different translations of the Bible.

To give an example recently I was having a hard time understanding John 2:23-25. The King James Version reads like this:

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

The more I thought about this the more it didn't make sense. So I tried the New International Version (NIV).

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

That was a little better but still not very clear. Next I tried the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

23 When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone.

It was slightly different but just similar enough that it didn't clarify it. So I tried the New Living Translation (NLT).

23 Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him. 24 But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature. 25 No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like.

This version really cleared it up and helped me understand this passage. With these different translations I was able to check the original Greek and get a sense of some of the key words to gain a better understanding of what John was talking about.

I once asked a New Testament scholar which translation would be a good one to use if I wanted to use something other than the KJV. Their response basically was, "Well it depends on what you want. I really can't say because they are all so different." I have asked a few other Bible scholars the same question and they all gave me the same answer.

But I'm not a Bible scholar so I can give a straight answer. Use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). You can read it online at Biblegateway.com.

Now a more nuanced answer.

If you do not consider yourself to be a scholar and you have only ever used the KJV then start with the New International Version (NIV). You can read it online at Biblehub.com or Biblegateway.com without having to purchase it.

The NIV is a modern translation in the spirit of the KJV. It is done by Evangelical Protestants and has become very popular in Evangelical churches supplanting the KJV as the de facto standard for churches in the US. It is a version that will be a very natural move for most Latter-day Saints in the United States.

The drawback of the NIV is that it doesn't have the poetic feeling of the language of the KJV. There are a few memorable passages ("Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death") in the KJV and the NIV does a poor job because it skews towards a more literal translation rather than a poetic one ("Even though I walk through the darkest valley").

But in terms of comprehension the NIV greatly enhances our ability to understand what is being said. With updated language it makes it easier to read and to get the concepts. It is a good starter translation for someone who is looking to move beyond the KJV.

But if you are going to buy a physical Bible to use for more intense study then definitely get a NRSV. The NRSV is more widely accepted among English speaking Christians and doesn't appeal to just Evangelicals. It is used by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals alike. The translation was done by a broader range of scholars and thus does not have some of the theological peculiarities that are in the NIV.

The NRSV is one that will help expand your understanding of the Bible and your personal scripture study. If you are serious about studying the Bible then you should get the Harper-Collins Study Bible, which is the standard version used in many college classes on the Bible. This is the version that I use.

So if you are reading the Bible like many Latter-day Saints are doing for Sunday School this year then I would suggest getting another translation to help expand your understanding of the Bible.

"The meek are makarioi for they shall inherit the earth."

When I entered into the MTC to learn Spanish for my mission I needed a Spanish to English dictionary to help me along. They gave every missionary a standard English-Spanish dictionary with tens of thousands of words in it but what I really needed was a simple picture dictionary so that I could learn the words for simple things like shoes, toilet, fork, restaurant, waiter, faucet, and kitchen sink. Fortunately they had one that I could buy from the bookstore. It proved very helpful for learning a variety of common words that made conversations easier.

When I got it and showed it to the other missionaries I proudly proclaimed, "It has everything! Including the kitchen sink!" As soon as I said this I turned to the page that showed a kitchen with everything labeled with both the Spanish and English words. Sure enough everything was labeled; the toaster, the oven, the oven mitt, the refrigerator, the pots and pans, everything.

Everything that is, except the kitchen sink. There were words for everything else, just not the kitchen sink. We all thought this was exceptionally weird and a tad ironic that my new dictionary had everything except the kitchen sink.

Over the course of my mission I spoke with many native Spanish speakers to try and learn the word for "kitchen sink". Their responses ranged from awkward realization that they had no idea what that thing they had seen their entire life was called, to indignation that I would ask such a silly question.

The best I ever got was from one companion who said he would call it a pila or pileta, which is a general word for a container that holds water, like a baptismal font (also called a pila, a battery is also a pila). But most people just didn't talk about it. They talked about washing the dishes, and washing their hands. They just never thought to mention the thing they did all that in.

To English speakers it may seem odd to not have a common word for something like that, but almost everyone I met had no idea that there was even supposed to be a name for that thing in the kitchen. You did things with it and it had a function all things that they had words for, but requiring that it have a specific name was an idea that was rather foreign to them.

To those who have learned another language being able to understand that these linguistic differences exist is key to understanding how language works. It is common for languages to have words that exist only in that language for objects and concepts that are not shared with other languages. One of the subtleties of learning a different language is not just learning the corresponding word in another language but understanding the words themselves in the context of that language.

When we read the Bible we have to remember that it was not written in English, and sometimes the words used in the original language don't have a direct analog in English. Just like people in Argentina when I asked them what the Spanish word for kitchen sink was and it was in that moment that they realized they had never even thought of having a word for that thing, there are concepts that do not exist in English that exist in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic.

One such word is μακάριοι (makarioi). In Greek there is a a single word that conveys an idea. In English we have many ways of describing the same idea, and even a few words that are used in a similar way, but every attempt at translation fails in someway. It's not that English speakers have never experienced makarioi, but they may never have thought about it because we don't have a word specifically for that.

In ancient Greek the word makarios (or makar) was used to refer to people who were living a rich life. They were people with a full and satisfying life. In the writings of Plato and Aristotle the term is sometimes translated as "good Sir" or "gentleman" implying someone of nobility with wealth enough that they do not need to labor with their hands. But more than being someone who does not have to constantly worry about their daily bread it is someone who can life a life content with what they are doing.

A philosopher, or statesman, or other rich, noble person may be makarios. But wealth itself was not what made someone makarios. In Greek it also refers to someone who has been favored by the gods. To be someone who was makarios you needed to be living a prosperous life. Someone who could look at their life and be content was makarios.

Thus another translation of makarios is happy. But in English happiness is usually understood to be a momentary emotion. Makarios implies a much more enduring contentedness with your life in general. Generally those who are enduing long term sickness, or hard labor, who must toil cannot have or be makarios. Anciently this was something that only the rich, educated, noble, and powerful could achieve.

In the New Testament the authors turn this around in the Greek version of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus proclaims:

The poor in spirit are makarioi, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Those who mourn are makarioi, for they will be comforted.
The meek are makarioi, for they will inherit the earth.
Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are makarioi, for they will be filled.
The merciful are makarioi, for they will be shown mercy.
The pure in heart are makarioi, for they will see God.
The peacemakers are makarioi, for they will be called children of God.
Those who are persecuted because of righteousness are makarioi, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Here those who are makarioi are not the rich, educated, nobles who have achieved a contented state in life, it is the poor, the meek, the pure in heart, the peacemakers.

In English this is almost always translated as blessed. And while that does convey part of the concept there is some confusion since we try to treat blessed as a verb while makarioi is an adjective, meaning we look for a subject and a predicate when there is none. When we read these passages in English we tend to unconsciously think "The poor are blessed. Who blesses them? God of course." But the original concept was not that those who are poor and meek will be blessed by God, but rather the poor and the meek are makarios. That is, the poor, the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers are living a full and contented life, not just the rich and powerful.

In the end it is the humble and pure in heart who will prosper and will see God.

Sometimes when we read the scriptures in English we unknowingly miss the original meaning. Sometimes the concepts are missed, not because we are incapable are understanding it or have never experienced it, but because our language just doesn't place emphasis on that. Or our language and grammar demand a particular form. When this happens we may unknowingly give undue emphasis to ideas that where never intended.

My Favorite Logical Fallacy: The Suppressed Correlative

In a post that I wrote last year I noted how some paradoxes could be resolved if you just considered how there has been a subtle shift in the definition of a word. In the case of the heap paradox the word heap is inherently vague and has no exact number. But the paradox is created when the definition of heap is given an exact number, that is, the word is redefined to include additional information that was not present in the original definition. With the heap paradox the definition is narrowed, unknown to perhaps everyone involved, in the course of the discussion, thereby creating the paradox. It is precisely a paradox because the key word, term, phrase, or idea is modified without the knowledge of those involved.

Redefining words is not necessarily a problem. It is only a problem if confusion and misunderstanding results from the redefinition, or if by redefining the word something in our understanding is lost. The redefinition of words should only help increase understanding, not destroy it.

So if the heap paradox relies on narrowing the definition of a vague word, what about the opposite, extending or broadening the definition? The opposite falls under a group of fallacies related to what is called the correlative. For every defined word there is a correlative, or everything that is not covered by the definition of that word.

For example, the word cat refers to a type of four-legged, furry animal that eats meat. When I use the word cat what I mean by that is generally understood. This includes house cats, mountain lions, tigers, lions, lynxes, panthers, and all kinds of cats. Despite the word cat being well defined there is inherent fuzziness to what constitutes a cat. For example, should a civet fall under the definition of a cat?

A civet. Image from Wikipedia.

What about a mongoose?

Pictures of mongooses. Image from Wikipedia.

At this point it is stretching the definition of the word cat. There definitely are things that are cats and there are things that are not cats, like dogs, horses, rocks, and rivers. Between the two, cats and not-cats, there is a grey area where it is debatable whether or not the word cat applies. The ambiguity at the edge of the definition is not a problem, that is just the nature of language, but it is very clear that there are cats and not-cats, even if the dividing line is not always clear.

With the word cat there is a specific definition that is understood by everyone. Thus there are things that are cats. The correlative to cats are not-cats, or everything that is not a cat. If we take the definition of the word cat and broaden it so that it includes all four-legged, furry creatures then it includes things such as civets and mongooses, but also dogs, cows, and horses. By making the definition too broad we can include not-cats in the definition of cat. This is referred to as suppressing the correlative.

We can change the definition, or make it so broad that it begins to include things that should be part of the correlative. If taken too far we can shrink, or suppress the correlative to the point that the original definition becomes meaningless. Or in other cases we make the definition so broad that it subsumes the definition of another word, such as extending the definition of cat until it is practically synonymous with the word mammal. So by suppressing the correlative we include things in the definition that are not supposed to be there, and in some cases the definition is extended to the point that we already have a word for the broader definition.

Talking about cats and not-cats may seem a little ridiculous, and just a bit too theoretical. So are there real examples of someone suppressing the correlative? Yes! This is a real thing. People do it all the time. You would be surprised at how often it comes up. When I talk about the definition of the word cat and extending it so that it includes things like dogs and sheep it is tempting to say that no one would do anything so ridiculous. But they do. They do it all the time.

Real example #1 of suppressing the correlative: Bad definitions of socialism.

Recently I was having a discussion with one of my students and he casually stated that when it comes down to it any form of taxation and government spending is really just socialism. This idea has even been summarized in a meme that made the rounds last year.

A good example of suppressing the correlative. Relies on a bad definition of socialism.

According to this anything done by the government is a form of socialism. There are many people who would severely object to suppressing the correlative and calling a dog a cat, but would not realize that the above meme commits the exact same fallacy.

There are types of governments that are socialist, and there are governments that are not-socialist. What the above meme does, and what my student did, was to take the definition of socialism and stretches it beyond its original definition until the concept of not-socialism doesn't exist. Socialism by definition is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange is controlled by the government in a democratic system. This definition puts boundaries on what socialism is and is not. Under this standard definition of socialism fire departments, public schools, and highways do not fall under the definition of socialism (social security is in that grey area).

If we extend the definition of socialism to include these things then it erases the distinction between a socialist vs. non-socialist government. In the case of my student who took the definition of socialism so far that he defined it as all taxing and spending, then the definition became entirely useless because we already have a word for that, government. Because socialism is a form of government, that means there are governments that are not-socialist. If you extend the definition of socialism to essentially mean government, then you have included not-socialism in the definition of socialism, and have suppressed the correlative.

Real example #2: Taxation is theft.

Among strict libertarians there is a saying that "taxation is theft". Without going into too much detail this sentiment relies on the fallacy of suppressing the correlative. It takes the definition of theft and broadens it in such a way that it is rendered useless. Whatever their objections are to taxes and government in general, I would recommend that libertarians stay away from this particular logical fallacy. It never helps your cause to use particularly bad logical fallacies, because the type of people you will recruit to your cause will be those who do not mind, or do not know that they are using logical fallacies. It does not make for a rational movement.

Real example #3: Fake news.

Real fake news (yes that is a thing) is a real problem. But a certain politician and his copycats have taken to calling everything they don't like fake news. This was easy to do because fake news had a very vague definition to begin with, so unlike something like the definition of cat, it was very prone to be redefined. Unfortunately they have redefined it in such a way that the include not-fake news under the umbrella of fake news. And based on things I have seen shared on Facebook people actually believe this fallacy. See my comment about rational movements above.

Real example #4: A random discussion on Facebook about "Science".

Recently I came across this random discussion on Facebook about what constitutes science. One of the people involved (who I will refer to as Charles) made the error of suppressing the correlative and got called out on it (by someone I will call Daniel). What I find utterly fascinating about this discussion is just how beautifully "Charles" suppresses the correlative and is blissfully unaware of just how far he has gone. There was a lot more going on in the discussion but I will pick out the important parts below:

Charles: What's the alternative to science in obtaining knowledge? If someone believes there are better (or even alternate) methods for obtaining knowledge, the last thing I would say is "no there aren't". I would simply ask, "What are they?" 

Daniel: Personal acquaintance is a pretty good alternative. So is historical research. Mathematics isn't bad, either. Hearing stories. Listening to music. Reading novels. None of this is science. 

Charles: these to me are all science. 

Daniel: Then all true knowledge really IS science, just as -- if we define all sports as baseball -- all athletic activity is . . . cue drumroll . . . BASEBALL! (QED.) 

Charles: To me science is simply methodological measurement. The lack of methodological control in one's measurement makes something less scientific, but it also makes it less reliable.... "What was the size of the Roman army in 100BC?" is just as much of a scientific (measurable) question as "How are you feeling today?" 

Daniel: To suggest that Roman history is "science" is to broaden the meaning of the term "science" in a very unhelpful way. "Methodological measurement" has little or nothing to do with historiography, art criticism, understanding poetry, human acquaintance, music appreciation, or any other of scores of distinct fields of human knowledge. I'm reminded of Moliere's "Bourgeois Gentilhomme," who was astonished to discover that, all his life, he had been speaking PROSE! Most people, watching a "Jason Bourne" movie or reading a Charles Dickens novel, would be astonished -- and quite properly so -- to be told that, in doing so, they were doing "science." 

Charles: As I already mentioned, to the degree that someone is not being methodological with their categorization of information, they're NOT doing science. But I also fail to see how the lack of methodology in their information categorization can rightly be called knowledge.... Certainly there are other human activities that are not science. Without question.... Science is (and can only be) the only reliable method for obtaining knowledge. When we talk about music appreciation, it's either any random opinion being equal to any other, or it's based on a methodological categorization of information pertaining to music. I'm assuming people who earn degrees in this would argue true musical "knowledge" looks more like the latter. 

Daniel: Just as, in my view, you stretch the meaning of "science" so far as to compromise its usefulness, your overly board definition of "measurement" threatens to make the term useless. Anyway, in the same spirit, I might judge the essence of science to be close and disciplined observation -- rather like art appreciation. Thus, I think I'll argue that all true knowledge is art appreciation.

The essence of the fallacy, as pointed out by "Daniel" is that it takes a definition and stretches it to the point that it is no longer useful. The word was defined originally because there was a need to distinguish between A and not-A. When that necessary distinction gets washed out, and it results in a loss of understanding or confusion then it is a fallacy.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose of recognizing logical fallacies is not so that you can go out and point them out to those who employ them, but rather so that you do not fall into that trap. Once you learn how to recognize this fault in thinking found in other people's arguments, you may be able to find it in your own thinking. Some other common places this pops up: the definition of faith, the definition of religion (especially those who try to call atheism a religion), and the definition of "theory".

PS: My observation that it is not a good idea to point out logical fallacies directly to other people (i.e. "Charles") is still true. I tested it, again, and yes I got the same result as before.

Escaping the Paradox: Heaps, Pirates, M. C. Escher and Language

There is an ancient paradox that goes something like this:

Imagine you have 10,000 grains of sand. If you had that much sand you would call it a heap of sand. Now imagine you remove one grain of sand so that you have 9,999 grains left. Is it still a heap? Yes, it still is a heap.

Remove one more grain of sand. Do you still have a heap of sand?

Keep removing single grains of sand. Each time you do you still have a heap of sand. When you are left with only two grains of sand is it still a heap? No? At what point did the heap of sand stop being a heap? Was it with three grains? or more?

That is the paradox. 10,000 grains of sand are definitely a heap, and if you take away one it is still a heap, but if you keep taking away single grains of sand when does it stop being a heap?

This paradox has plagued philosophers and students for over 2000 years and it keeps discussions going in introductory philosophy classes, which provides much employment to professional philosophers. But before we resolve this paradox I wanted to write a little about the art of M. C. Escher, because some of his most famous art can also be paradoxical. Below is his famous drawing entitled "Waterfall".

Image from www.mcescher.com.

What is paradoxical about this image is that the water at the "bottom" appears to flow "up" until it reaches the "top" where it falls "down" to begin the process all over again. Additionally each bend in the stream appears to be directly over another part of the structure, thereby creating an apparently impossible structure. This paradox, or optical illusion, how ever you want to call it, both confounds and delights all who see it.

While most people consider the work of M. C. Escher, appreciate it, perhaps hang a copy in their house or office, very few stop and take the time to consider why it is a paradox and ultimately escape the paradox.

If we just consider a single part of the image, say just the waterfall part, or one of the bends, by themselves there is no problem, nor a paradox.

Removed from the larger context these constituent parts are not paradoxical. So how did these individual parts go from non-paradoxical to paradoxical when put together?

The answer is that the paradox only exists because we assume more than there is in the image. The image itself is only a two dimensional collection of lines and shading that all together we interpret as a waterfall, a stream, and a brick structure with columns. The structure does not exist in three dimensions. The collection of two dimensional lines and shading create an image of what we interpret to be a three dimensional structure. If the structure really was three dimensional then it would defy the natural order of the universe, but it is not, so it does not.

The paradox only exists because we take each individual part, the waterfall, the bend in the stream, and we can imagine a real three dimensional structure like that, but when we try to fit the imaginary three dimensional parts together, we fail, and thus we have a paradox.

But if we remember that we are only looking at two dimensional lines and shading which only imply flowing water, columns and a brick structure, the paradox does not create a problem, and definitely does not trigger an existential crisis. If we do not make the leap from representation to actuality what we are left with is an interesting picture that does not break the laws of physics and geometry.

So now we can return and resolve the heap paradox. The reason why it creates a paradox is because each individual part is logical and non-paradoxical. There is nothing illogical about considering either 10,000 or 9,999 grains of sand to be a heap of sand. So if we have 10,000 grains and take away one we still have a heap. Much like a single bend in the stream in "Waterfall", it does not create a paradox. But it we then group a series of individual bends together we are left with a paradox.

With the drawing the paradox was created by mistaking a 2D representation for a 3D reality. In the heap paradox the mistake is extending words and language beyond their representations. In this case extending the definition of the word "heap", which is by definition inexact, to mean an exact value. Yes 10,000 grains of sand can make a heap because 10,000 grains of sand would be hard to count and thus for all practical purposes we cannot distinguish between 10,001, 10,000 or 9,999 grains. Hence we use the inexact term "heap".

The heap paradox only remains a paradox if we commit an equivocation and alter the definition of the word to mean an exact number. An exact number implies an exact boundary between "heap" and "not heap", which did not exist in the original definition.

So should we insist on the eradication of all paradoxes from our language? Heavens no. These paradoxes, much like the drawings of M. C. Escher add richness to our language and are the basis to our humor and entertainment. But if we forget the nature of language we might be confronted with a paradox and conclude that the nature of reality is broken, when it is only our understanding that is limited. We must remember that our paradoxes are rooted in a misuse of language. If we remember that then we can escape the paradox and it can be humorous and entertaining, but if not, then, like Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance, we will be slaves to a misuse of language.

The Heavens and God: Contain Vs. Sustain

"But will God really dwell on earth with humans? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

There was a small translation oddity that I noted while reading in 2 Chronicles in a passage where King Solomon is dedicating the temple in Jerusalem. At one point in the dedicatory prayer King Solomon asks if God will dwell on the earth, because if the heavens themselves are insufficient for God then how much more is a simple temple insufficient for God. This is where the translation gets interesting.

In 2 Chronicles 6:18 records, "The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you." [emphasis added]. Here the Hebrew word translated as "contain" is יְכַלְכְּל֔וּךָ. But if we look up how the word, its root, and derivatives are used in other verses we get a different sense for the word. The general meaning of the root word is "to comprehend, contain", while various roots are also translated as: endure, maintain, provide, provided, provided them with sustenance, provisioned, sustain, sustained, and sustainer.

The general idea is that the primitive root implies a measured container that can be filled with a certain amount of stuff. But in a figurative sense it implies providing a measured amount of sustenance, hence passages such as Genesis 45:11 are translated as "I will provide [וְכִלְכַּלְתִּ֤י] for you there, because five years of famine are still to come. Otherwise you and your household and all who belong to you will become destitute." Or Nehemiah 9:21 which reads, "For forty years you sustained [כִּלְכַּלְתָּ֥ם] them in the wilderness; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen."

While the root form of word is translated as "contain" or "hold", for example, 1 Kings 7:38 reads, "He then made ten bronze basins, each holding [יָכִ֣יל] forty baths and measuring four cubits across, one basin to go on each of the ten stands.", all other variants of the word are translated as "provide", "sustain", "maintain" or some other variant of a similar concept, except for three instances relating to the same question asked in 2 Chronicles 6:18. Two of those are from the dedicatory prayer as recorded in Chronicles and Kings, and the other is uttered by King David when he is commanded to prepare to build the temple, the language of which is later mirrored by his son King Solomon.

It just seemed a little odd that a word which is almost always translated in the figurative sense as "provide", "sustain", "maintain" or some other variant, would be reduced to the literal sense as "contain" in the three cases where it refers to God. I just wonder on what basis the translators decided to go against the common definition of the word for those three verses and insert "contain" instead of "sustain". If we instead translate יְכַלְכְּל֔וּךָ as "sustain" we see that it changes the sense of the verse in such a subtle way that it can imply something very different about God.

"But will God really dwell on earth with humans? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot sustain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

In the first case the verse implies an extraphysicality to God which belies a particular view of God as incorporeal. While the second case simply implies that the heavens themselves are insufficient to sustain the majesty of God, and that an insignificant building would do no better. The first makes a metaphysical judgement on God, while the second merely casts judgement on the heavens and the temple. It is easy to see why so many modern Christians would not question the first translation, but the question to ask is if there is a basis for those ideas in the Bible, in the original autographs, or if those where ideas were introduced later and no one stopped to ask if they were correct, or if they fit with other, plainer scriptures.

Sometimes there are subtleties in translation that cause original meanings to be lost, and new ones to appear. Sometimes it is a small and seemingly insignificant thing, and that is why we must be careful not to take a particular word, or verse and draw conclusions from that which may not be correct.

"She's gonna poke my eyes out!"

The teacher in my Elder's Quorum mentioned this today and I had to go look it up and I thought it was pretty good.

So you may know the parable of the unjust judge found in Luke:

1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.

 That part in verse five that reads "lest by her continual coming she weary me" is apparently very different if you read the original Greek. The word that is translated in the King James Version as "she weary me" is ὑπωπιάζῃ which literally means "to strike under the eye" (i.e. to give someone a black eye). As the teacher pointed out (in a former life he was a classics major) the connotation of the word ὑπωπιάζῃ is sort of what the Greek equivalent of WWF fighters do to each other by trying to gouge each other's eyes out.

So perhaps a better rendering of verse five might be:

5 Yet because this widow keeps getting in my face, I will avenge her, or else one of these days she's gonna come here and poke my eyes out.

I think the Bible is a tad bit more interesting if you learn a little Greek.

Internet Comments, Language Out of Context

Many years ago, before Web 2.0 but after the invention of the internet, I would occasionally go to the public library and check out music CDs instead of books. I would do this because the public library was the one place where I could discover new music that radio DJs would never dream of playing on the radio, because it was, you know, actually good music and they can't play that on the radio.

It was on one of these trips to the library that I was perusing the music selection and I happened to come across a CD by Yanni. I had heard of him before and had heard someone play one of his songs on the piano so I was considering checking it out so I could hear his music and see if I liked it (I later bought two of his CDs). While I was standing there looking at the cover, a man who had been browsing the music near by noticed what I was looking at and made some comment about Yanni. I, being the socially awkward person that I am, grunted a non committal grunt.

Undeterred, the man continued on about how he finds Yanni boring (let's face it, after two CDs I agreed), but then he went on and made some comment about Yanni and John Denver (this was shortly after John Denver died in a plane crash). I gave him a quizzical look so he explained that he had heard that John Denver and Yanni were lovers. It was at this point that I decided the conversation was over. It was just a little too awkward for my normal stoicism.

As I look back on this brief interaction I realize that what I experienced was a real life version of an anonymous internet comment. I do not need to belabor the nature of (semi-)anonymous comments on the internet, but I would like to point out some important differences between my real life encounter with an anonymous commenter and internet comments. When that random man at the library made his comments there were some crucial differences between the real life version and the equivalent virtual conversation. What fills the difference is the unspoken nuances of language that are not found in the actual words.

If I had written down verbatim everything the man had said I still would not have captured everything that was conveyed in our brief encounter. The unspoken elements of language that in many cases go beyond what is said, or even how it is said, can be used to judge and evaluate the veracity and usefulness of what is said. For example, the man's speech, while not exactly slurred, was not all that precise in its pronunciation. That is, his pronunciation immediately made me think of him as someone who is not too bright. I do not mean uneducated, I am sure he was sharp enough to graduate from high school, and perhaps go to college, but given the context his pronunciation marked him as someone who would not be making or thinking profound thoughts. Beyond his speech there was his demeanor and grooming that seemed to indicate that he had at least taken a bath before leaving his parent's basement to go to the library (he was probably in his late 20's). In short, if you met this guy on the street you probably would not take seriously anything he said.

While it is true that speech and appearance cannot always be used to judge someone, in that context the unspoken parts of language were the things that allowed me evaluate and ignore what he had said when the actual words that he said could not be proven one way or the other. So it was precisely due to the fact that he was standing there with me in the flesh that I could evaluate his character and decide that what he said, almost no matter what it was, could not be trusted as accurate. But in the realm of the internet all of those unspoken cues of language are stripped away and language is reduced to the bare words.

In this expropriation of words from their linguistic context it is too common to mistake comments that should not be taken seriously for those that should, and mistake those comments that should not be treated lightly for those that we do not give a second thought. This does not mean that this confusion does not exist for language in context, but it is easier to lose sight of which comments to ignore and which ones demand a response when we divest the unspoken cues from the words that we say.

Key Differences in the BoM and Isaiah Texts

[This is a cross post from my other blog where I am doing a side-by-side comparison of Isaiah chapters and quotes found in the Book of Mormon.]

After doing a side-by-side comparison of 21 Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon I noticed a few interesting things about the variations in the texts. There are many very minor variations between the two texts, but there are also some major variations that quite significantly change the meaning. There are some differences that can obviously be attributed scribal error, on the part of Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery (or others, such as the printer) that were never found or corrected. Still there are others that point to a difference of translation, and still others that indicate a fundamentally different text from the ones used in translating the Bible. I will try to give examples of each of these interesting differences below.

I was also impressed with how consistent the two texts are, even though there are obvious differences. After going over the two texts from the Book of Mormon and Bible, I could tell that the text found in the Book of Mormon was not a simple, sloppy, or ignorant attempt at plagiarism of Isaiah found in the KJV Bible. The differences and distinctions are too nuanced, and even when they differ the differences are too unintentional that it would take a world class scholar to produce them, or a very inspired man.

In no particular order here are a few of the interesting differences.

Difference in Translation

Differences in the text are marked in RED. Variations in the text are marked in ROSE. Mosiah 14:9	Differences in the text are marked in BLUE. Variations in the text are marked in GREEN. Isaiah 53:9
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no evil, neither was any deceit in his mouth.	9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

In these verses there is one difference, the word violence is replaced with the word evil. While we may at first assume that this is a difference in the original texts, instead this appears to be a difference in translation. If we compare many different English translations of the same text almost all of them use the word violence, but if we look at a Bible commentary on that passage we find that the same Hebrew word used in that verse is alternately translated as wrong in other verses in the Bible. When Peter quotes the same verse in his first general epistle he uses the word ἀμαρτία which translates, usually, as sin. Also Jesus himself uses a paraphrase of the verse to defend himself as recorded in John 8:46, with the word in question is again translated as sin. So ultimately what we have here is a rather interesting difference in translation. It is a subtle difference but I think that it is still a valid translation of the original concept.

Scribal Error -- The wrong word

2 Nephi 24:19	Isaiah 14:19
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and the remnant of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet.	19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

I was surprised and intrigued when I found this difference. At first I thought that it could be a difference in translation, much like the previous example, but I looked up other Bible translations and it quickly became apparent that the concept bound up in the original text strongly implied raiment and not remnant. In context, and comparing other similar passages from Isaiah, I am inclined to think that this difference is due to a scribal error. Considering the fact that the two words are very similar when spoken aloud (at least with your standard American accent), and considering the fact that Joseph Smith was dictating the text, it would be very easy for this error to happen. Also because the word remnant makes sense in context this would not be an error that would be easily found and corrected without a review of the original text.

Additional Text -- Slight changes in meaning

2 Nephi 24:2	Isaiah 14:2
2 And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors.	2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

In several places there are whole phrases or sentences added that expound on the meaning of the original text. In the verses above there is an additional sentence that adds additional information about what is meant by the verse. There are a few other seemingly minor differences later on in the verse but when they are considered in conjunction with the earlier addition, the subtle changes made to the content is consistent and insightful.

The Missing Words -- Italicized text

2 Nephi 15:28-29	Isaiah 5:28-29
28 Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.	28 Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind:
29 They shall roar like young lions; yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry away safe, and none shall deliver.	29 Their roaring shall be like a lion, they shall roar like young lions: yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry it away safe, and none shall deliver it.

After doing a few chapters I decided that I needed to keep track of the italicized text in the Bible. For those who don't know, in the KJV of the Bible there are many words that are in italics. These are words that do not appear in the original Greek or Hebrew, but must be added to make it grammatically correct in English. For any one who has learned a foreign language this is something obvious about translation. Sometimes certain words (pronouns, participles, adverbs etc.) are not needed in another language, but are needed in English. After a while I noticed that a number, but not all, of the italicized words in the KJV were either missing or different in the Book of Mormon. This would indicate a slightly more literal translation was used for the Book of Mormon. That was a particularly remarkable realization and changed the way I viewed the basic text of the Book of Mormon.

Also there were a few cases where a phrase that appeared in a previous verse was moved to the next verse in the corresponding chapter and verses. The two above verses are an example of that.

Joseph Smith's Commentary

1 Nephi 20:1	Isaiah 48:1
1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.	1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

The very first chapter that I did, the very first verse, turned out to be one of the most interesting in terms of providing insight into not only how the translation process worked, but also Joseph Smith's idea of what it meant to "translate" something. If Joseph Smith had ever had the opportunity to attend a real university, and if he had taken a class on Biblical Hebrew then he surely would have failed the class and would have driven the professor to the point of insanity. Joseph Smith's idea of "translation" was to say or write down whatever he thought it meant, not what it actually said.

Fortunately Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon was more of a revelatory process and not an academic process, which is what most people think of when they hear the word "translation". Most people think that Joseph sat there and translated, in an academic sense, the etchings on the gold plates, which would have required him to actually learn Reformed Egyptian. But from the many accounts of people who witnessed the translation process, the translation was more of an inspired revelation that utilized the resources of Joseph's mind to formulate the text into English. It was by all measures quite remarkable.

So why this little rant of mine? Because of the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism". That phrase does not appear in original manuscript, nor in the printer's manuscript, nor in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, but it does appear in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon. What that phrase appears to be is a "prophetic commentary" by Joseph Smith. It is something that he apparently had no problem adding to the text as he considered it his job to "translate" and to expound scripture, but it is something that would make academics working on a translation tear out their hair and curl up in a ball in the corner of the room and cry for hours on end. It is a major indication that Joseph Smith did not understand translation in the same way that you and I view translation. Upon finding out that he would change the text like that some people would, and do, criticize him for improperly changing the meaning, but as far as we can tell this is the only instance of "prophetic commentary" by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon. The rest of the text seems to be as it was on the gold plates.

Conclusion

To be honest I was never wild about Isaiah like some people are in the Church. It never crossed my mind to take the class Writings of Isaiah at BYU. I did, and still do, read Isaiah in my personal scripture study. I think that by far my favorite chapter in all of scripture is 3 Nephi 22, which is also Isaiah 54, so it cannot be said that I dislike Isaiah, it's just that never felt an intense desire to take a class devoted to Isaiah, or to write a book about him. So it may be a little odd that I spent, and will still spend so much time on this project. Still, I think I learned more about Joseph Smith and how he translated the Book of Mormon than I did about Isaiah by doing this. It definitely changed the way I view the actual text found in the Book of Mormon and it gave me a greater appreciation of how real, and in some cases, how literal the text is. I think the translation is a very good one and will stand the test of time.

Stories from My Mission: Who in the world is Tina Danner?

[Author's Note: Those who have been following my blog for a while may have noticed that I never use my own name on my blog. There really isn't any reason for it, I just like having an "online persona" for my blog. The concept of having a pen name really isn't that uncommon, and in some cases it helps writers from getting their readers mixed up with their other works. So I am going to do something I normally don't do and that is mention my real name, because it is integral to the story.]

One of the subtle things about learning another language is learning how to pronounce the different sounds. Even with Spanish were the alphabet is essentially the same there are subtle differences in how certain letters are pronounced. For example, the most obvious ones that every student who learns Spanish learns right off the bat is the difference in how you pronounce a /j/. In Spanish it is pronounced with like the English /h/. Another very subtle and less known example is the difference in how /d/ and /t/ are pronounced in Spanish.

English has a very hard /t/ sound, and in the most extreme instance it sounds like we are spitting. In Spanish there is no such thing. The /t/ in Spanish sounds almost exactly (or even in many situations, exactly) like the English /d/ sound. It is not as close as the Spanish /b/ and /v/ which are effectively indistinguishable (and of course leads to some of the most common spelling errors in Spanish, and coincidentally a major test of whether or not someone is a native Spanish speaker).

So when I first got to Argentina and I had to introduce myself I would typically say something like, "Hola, me llamo Elder Tanner" with a strong English /t/ (note: all male Mormon missionaries use the title "Elder", even when we are speaking Spanish, which, because it is an English word, causes confusion). In my first area when I first introduced myself to the Church members they would all pause and then ask, "What was your name?" Some of the members had extensive experience with American missionaries so English (or American) names were not that unusual for them. But for others my name was very unusual, and the fact that the /t/ in my name was followed by an /a/ made the /t/ that much more pronounced (my companion's name was Elder Tenny, and he never seemed to have my problem with the /t/, except he had to deal with the fact that everyone wanted to pronounce it "Tennis", because of the /y/ on the end, which in Argentina sounds like /sh/).

In English, if I introduce myself as "Elder Tanner" saying "Tanner" with the normal English /t/ no one notices, since a strong /t/ is common. But in Spanish, the /t/ sounds hard and harsh. Which meant that people would try to imitate the way I said my name and would say, "Elder Ch-anner". There was one member who thought it funny and every time he saw me for the next 6 months would say "Elder Channer" with emphasis on the /ch/ and each time would practically spit his teeth across the room, and then smile slyly like he had just made the best joke in the world. I hated it.

But that was not the only misunderstanding with my name that happened on my mission, which finally brings me to the subject mentioned in the title, how I found out that I am "related" to Tina Turner. Before my mission I had heard of Tina Turner, and I even knew that she sang songs, but if you had shown me a picture of her I would not have recognized her, nor would I have recognized any of her music. After my mission I think I have listened to a grand total of two of her songs. But apparently she was uber-famous in Argentina, as in everyone, even in the most remote hamlet in the middle of nowhere, had heard of her. Even though they had all heard of her, to them there was no difference between the names Turner and Tanner (hey, there's not a lot of difference in English), so I had only been on my mission about a day when I first got the question, "Are you related to Tina Tanner?", except they would say it, "Tina Danner".

The very first time I got the question I was confused, because I had never heard of someone named, "Tina Danner" or even "Tina Tanner". I think my companion Elder Tenny realized the mistake the first time and corrected them and said, "No it's Tina Turner". After that first time I think I was asked if I was related to "Tina Danner" about once a week for the first three months. After that it slowed to about once a month or so, and I typically was asked the same question without fail at least once a month, and sometimes more, for the rest of my mission.

After my first area I learned to say my name with a softer /t/, but apparently in my second area I wasn't saying it soft enough since I still had a few people call me "Elder Channer" or maybe "Elder Danner". By my third area I had fully transitioned over to introducing myself as "Elder Danner" with a very soft /t/ that to an English speaker would sound like a /d/, but to Spanish speakers they could tell the difference, even if the /t/ was practically a /d/. I got a lot less confusion over my name after that.

Is "The Son of Man" Lord of the Sabbath or is Man? An interesting look at Mark 2:27-28.

A while ago I was reading the book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart D. Ehrman and I came across an interesting part. Dr. Ehramn was discussing whether or not the oral histories that would eventually become the four canonical gospels could have originated in Judea in the first century, and he gave as evidence the passage found in Mark 2:27-28, which reads:

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

This particular passage deals with an event where the pharisees confronted Jesus and complained that his disciples were walking through fields of grain on the Sabbath and plucking and eating the grain from the field. This they said, was a violation of the commandment to "keep the Sabbath day holy". To this Jesus responds by mentioning the story of king David and how he ate the shewbread from the tabernacle, which he was not supposed to do according to Jewish law. Jesus is essentially saying, "If David, who you revere can do that and you do not condemn him, why do you condemn my disciples for eating food that does not come from the sanctuary, and is not holy?"

To finish up his argument Jesus tells them "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". Up until now his argument makes sense but then he adds, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." In the book of Mark the phrase "Son of man" clearly refers to Jesus, who is understood to be the Messiah. But this phrase does not follow from his previous argument. It seems to be a non sequitur, because why would the fact that the Sabbath was made for man make Jesus (the Messiah) Lord of the Sabbath? But this is precisely what the word therefore implies, that because of the previous argument Jesus concluded that He is Lord of the Sabbath.

I remember years ago in Sunday School classes this scripture was talked about and debated because no one could really make sense of it. I heard a number of different explanations regarding verse 28, but none of them seemed satisfactory and felt like the explanation was stretched just a little too far.

If you go and look at the text in Greek the text is clear, the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (son of man) is the Lord of the Sabbath. So looking at the original Greek does not help since the confusion is still there. But interestingly enough if you take the text and translate it into Aramaic then the sense of verse 28 changes. As explained by Dr. Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? we discover,

"Aramaic uses the same word for man and for son of man. It is the word barnash. And so the two-liner originally said, "Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore barnash is lord of the Sabbath." Now the therefore makes sense. The reason that humans (barnash) are the lords of the Sabbath is because of what he just said: Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. Moreover, now the last line makes sense in the context of the story. The disciples (the barnash) are masters of the Sabbath, which was created for their sake." (p. 89)

So even though the earliest texts of the book of Mark are written in Greek, Dr. Ehrman uses this passage to point out that the original stories told by the disciples of Jesus were told in Aramaic, because occasionally they make more sense when translated into Aramaic. I think this version (from the Aramaic) is very interesting and really clarifies this passage. The theological implications of this change are interesting.