The Most Correct Book On Earth

[Zakuska]

While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can tell me why the 1st edition said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor but in the 2nd edition he was listed as translator?

Because JS was following the copywrite laws that where on the books at the time.

[MormonMason]

While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can tell me why the 1st edition said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor but in the 2nd edition he was listed as translator?

Legal requirements. The legal verbiage for copyright changed shortly therafter and thereafter every single edition of the Book of Mormon that followed listed him as the translator.

Interestingly enough, even a translator is in reality an author. The translator must take the ancient words and their meanings and rewrite these into English sentences of the translator's own composition.

Furthermore, even the first Edition preface listed him as the translator and author--just not on the title page. See the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon for your enlightenment.

[CMZ]

While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can tell me why the 1st edition said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor but in the 2nd edition he was listed as translator?

Wow, there's a new one!

[Zakuska]

What I wont to know is why so many of Pauls letters aren't really pauls letters?

[wes]

In addition to the many changes made in the BOM (which I believe are evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work), it is also not considered good literature by anyone outside of LDS circles (that I am aware of). This is in stark contrast to the Bible which is considered one of the greatest masterpieces of literature throughout history. Not only is it inherently good literature, but it has also inspired other great literature (Shakepeare, Milton, etc.) and works of art(Rembrandt, Da Vinci, etc.).

[cjwright]

In addition to the many changes made in the BOM (which I believe are evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work), it is also not considered good literature by anyone outside of LDS circles (that I am aware of). This is in stark contrast to the Bible which is considered one of the greatest masterpieces of literature throughout history. Not only is it inherently good literature, but it has also inspired other great literature (Shakepeare, Milton, etc.) and works of art(Rembrandt, Da Vinci, etc.).

Maybe because the Bible (KJV 1611) was translated by about 54 of the countries top scholars in the land, and from the time, that brought literature the great words of Shakespeare, and the Book of Mormon was translated by an relatively unschooled farmer from New York. The Bible's literary prowess has nothing to do with its containing the words of God, and the Book of Mormon's lack of literary prowess (as you claim) has nothing to do with its containing the words of God.

All you arguements have been answered, it's just the fact that you don't like the answers which is causing you problems.

[littlechild]

Well, for one thing, not all Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant. Secondly, Joseph Smith is the one who said it was the most correct book on earth. Such a statement implies a lot especially in light of the 8th article of Mormon faith which says the following: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

What does the word 'correct' mean to you? To me, it means the doctrines it espouses and the history it relates are true and faithful. It doesn't mean that it's grammatically correct and syntactically frozen.

[urroner]

wes, are you even reading any of the responses to you zombie questions?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Like the "minor" change in 2 Nephi 30:6 which used to read "white and delightsome" and is now "pure and delightsome."

Yeah that is such a huge change. Totally diffrent meaning.

The only one claiming that the Translation BY JS was "Perfect" is you wes.

And that is kinda convenient.

[urroner]

The only one claiming that the Translation BY JS was "Perfect" is you wes.

Need I say more.

[urroner]

Maybe because the Bible (KJV 1611) was translated by about 54 of the countries top scholars in the land, and from the time, that brought literature the great words of Shakespeare, and the Book of Mormon was translated by an relatively unschooled farmer from New York. The Bible's literary prowess has nothing to do with its containing the words of God, and the Book of Mormon's lack of literary prowess (as you claim) has nothing to do with its containing the words of God.

All you arguements have been answered, it's just the fact that you don't like the answers which is causing you problems.

How many changes has occurred in the KJV since 1611? Haven't books been deleted from it wholesale?

Then there was the "Wicked Bible" of 1631!!! What a hoot. This version of the KJV taught that adultery was not only acceptable, but that the Lord commanded us to commit it.

[Zakuska]

Maybe because the Bible (KJV 1611) was translated by about 54 of the countries top scholars in the land, and from the time, that brought literature the great words of Shakespeare, and the Book of Mormon was translated by an relatively unschooled farmer from New York. The Bible's literary prowess has nothing to do with its containing the words of God, and the Book of Mormon's lack of literary prowess (as you claim) has nothing to do with its containing the words of God.

All you arguements have been answered, it's just the fact that you don't like the answers which is causing you problems.

Not to mention that much of the Bible was plagerized off temple walls all over the middle east.

[Jason]

Two points:

1) "Most" correct doesn't mean perfect - it just means more correct than any other book at the time.

2) Joseph was comparing the book's spiritual content to other books of its time, not it's grammar or typo count.

It is more correct than the Bible because it has been better preserved (from Moroni straight to Joseph) and was translated by a prophet with inspiration guiding him.

[ttribe]

wes, are you even reading any of the responses to you zombie questions?

This is an ongoing pattern in all of wes's threads.

[cjwright]

How many changes has occurred in the KJV since 1611? Haven't books been deleted from it wholesale?

Then there was the "Wicked Bible" of 1631!!! What a hoot. This version of the KJV taught that adultery was not only acceptable, but that the Lord commanded us to commit it.

My point was that Wes's claim that the Book of Mormon was not considered good literature outside the Church, and as such is evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work, is not valid, as the Bible was translated to make it more appeasing linguistically to fit the style of the language at the time it was translated, and the Bible's literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God, the same as Wes's opinion that the Book of Mormon lack of literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God.

As the KJV from 1611 was the first authorized full English translation of the Bible, I used it as an example of why the Bible has such a literary style to it. The KJV that the Church uses comes from the offical standardized text versions done in 1769, and not from the later versions that have been done to modernize the English.

EDIT: Though of course I get my last statement from what it says about the Authroized King James Version on Wikipedia, and we all know how reliable that is

[cdowis]

Sorry but that does not answer the question I asked.

Here is the answer to your question:

The phrase "most correct book" has nothing to do with grammar, punctuation, spelling, prose, poetry, bad breath, hair loss, or anything else EXCEPT for the doctrines and teachings contained within this book.

This is the most correct book regarding the teachings and doctrine of Christ.

[gmormon]

My point was that Wes's claim that the Book of Mormon was not considered good literature outside the Church, and as such is evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work, is not valid, as the Bible was translated to make it more appeasing linguistically to fit the style of the language at the time it was translated, and the Bible's literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God, the same as Wes's opinion that the Book of Mormon lack of literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God.

As the KJV from 1611 was the first authorized full English translation of the Bible, I used it as an example of why the Bible has such a literary style to it. The KJV that the Church uses comes from the offical standardized text versions done in 1769, and not from the later versions that have been done to modernize the English.

EDIT: Though of course I get my last statement from what it says about the Authroized King James Version on Wikipedia, and we all know how reliable that is

What ? Wikipedia isn't reliable ? Heretic !

[ERayR]

Wes please take your nose out of yesterdays "witnessing to Mormons" lesson and read the answers to your posts. If you would just learn to think for yourself instead of parrot the witnessing lessons like a mind numbed robot you might just improve your knowledge base. Please break the shakles of organized anti-mormonism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, the following statement by Martin Harris from The Millenial Star seems to indicate that it was a perfect translation:

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, â??Written,â? and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

If it was not perfect, then why does the 8th article of faith single out the Bible as an imperfect translation but not the BOM?

If you've done any research in folklore and oral transmission, things along that line, you'll quickly find that we humans are remarkable capable of changing our own memories. Why do I bring this up? There are problems with various statements of witnesses. These problems are common stuff in regards to historical memories in general. A critical analysis of the BOM manuscript reveals how Harris could come away with this impression of spelling things out years after the fact. The critical text analysis reveals that oftentimes when place names or proper names in the Book of Mormon were given, Joseph Smith would spell them out. The scribe often corrected the first spelling, or the writing reflected a spelling by dictation. Other witnesses who helped scribe report similar findings. What do we learn from the physical evidence and the witness statements? That Harris indeed recalls writing certain things out as spelled and dictated, but that each individual instance doesn't necessarily reflect such a tight control of the text.

Further, when JS made the "most correct book" statement he was not referring to spelling , grammar, etc.

[urroner]

My point was that Wes's claim that the Book of Mormon was not considered good literature outside the Church, and as such is evidence of its inauthenticity as an inspired work, is not valid, as the Bible was translated to make it more appeasing linguistically to fit the style of the language at the time it was translated, and the Bible's literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God, the same as Wes's opinion that the Book of Mormon lack of literary merit has nothing to do with the fact it is the word of God.

As the KJV from 1611 was the first authorized full English translation of the Bible, I used it as an example of why the Bible has such a literary style to it. The KJV that the Church uses comes from the offical standardized text versions done in 1769, and not from the later versions that have been done to modernize the English.

EDIT: Though of course I get my last statement from what it says about the Authroized King James Version on Wikipedia, and we all know how reliable that is

But you just don't understand, it's a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't." wes is complaining that it's not up to the standard of Biblical literature and there are plenty of those who complain that it uses Biblical language in it. Who's right? Is wes right or are the others right? Can they both be right?

[wes]

If you've done any research in folklore and oral transmission, things along that line, you'll quickly find that we humans are remarkable capable of changing our own memories. Why do I bring this up? There are problems with various statements of witnesses. These problems are common stuff in regards to historical memories in general. A critical analysis of the BOM manuscript reveals how Harris could come away with this impression of spelling things out years after the fact. The critical text analysis reveals that oftentimes when place names or proper names in the Book of Mormon were given, Joseph Smith would spell them out. The scribe often corrected the first spelling, or the writing reflected a spelling by dictation. Other witnesses who helped scribe report similar findings. What do we learn from the physical evidence and the witness statements? That Harris indeed recalls writing certain things out as spelled and dictated, but that each individual instance doesn't necessarily reflect such a tight control of the text.

Further, when JS made the "most correct book" statement he was not referring to spelling , grammar, etc.

How do you know what he was referring to with the statement "the most correct book on earth"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

No translation into English from another language can ever be perfect--end of story.

Exactly. The very act of translating introduces anachronisms, contradictions, changes to the original. It is inevitable. Blake OStler pointed me towards semantic field theory, as Alister E. McGrath, in Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, From the Beginnings to 1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 9, noted:

The difficulties attending the translation of the Old Testament into any second language, whether modern English or Hellenistic Greek, are well illustrated by the application of semantic field theory. The semantic field of a word includes not merely its synonyms, but also its antonyms, homonyms and homophones. As such, it is much broader than the lexical field, which may be defined very precisely in terms of words which are closely associated with one another. The enormous size of such semantic fields may be illustrated from the associative field of the French word chat, which is estimated to consist of some two thousand words. The translation of a word into a different language inevitably involves a distortion of the semantic field, so that certain nuances and associations present in the original cannot be conveyed in a translation, and new nuances and associations not already present make their appearance. The word chosen to translate the original will itself have a well-established semantic field, so that an alien set of associations will be imposed upon the word in question.

Translation issues are especially difficult in religious texts.

[wes]

But you just don't understand, it's a case of "damned if we do and damned if we don't." wes is complaining that it's not up to the standard of Biblical literature and there are plenty of those who complain that it uses Biblical language in it. Who's right? Is wes right or are the others right? Can they both be right?

Are you referring to the direct plaigarism of the Bible, the poor use of King James English contained in the BOM, or both?

[LifeOnaPlate]

How do you know what he was referring to with the statement "the most correct book on earth"?

We already spoke about this on the phone. First, read Smith's own full statement wherein he declares it is correct especially in that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (See the orig. quote in HC 4:461). Second, as has been noted, this comment was made after Smith himself had made numerous revisions to the Book of Mormon text following its initial publication. Further, spelling wasn't fully formalized at the time, so pointing to spelling issues, etc. is problematic in that the argument is founded in a fallacy of presentism. Finally, Smith was not a scriptural inerrantist, and that included the Book of Mormon.

[urroner]

Wes please take your nose out of yesterdays "witnessing to Mormons" lesson and read the answers to your posts. If you would just learn to think for yourself instead of parrot the witnessing lessons like a mind numbed robot you might just improve your knowledge base. Please break the shakles of organized anti-mormonism.

Here is the article written by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, two Evangelical scholars, which caused some ruckus in the EV anti-Mormon cult, but made a lot of sense. wes, you need to read it.Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?It was written 11 years ago, and still the EV world chooses to ignore their wise counsel.

Introduction:

Spiritual warfare is a reality. Battle in the spiritual realm is not fought with guns and tanks in the manner of the world. This is the war of ideas that vie for men's minds. The Apostle Paul tells us that the weapons we fight with have divine power to demolish such intellectual strongholds. Of Christians he says that, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:5). However, to tear down arguments entails that one must first know what the arguments are. This paper seeks to describe the scholarly and apologetic arguments of one group which we, as evangelicals, believe inhibit true knowledge of God.

The Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs. This paper does not discuss the full range of defensive and offensive scholarship by Latter-day Saints. Instead, we will focus our discussion upon those disciplines that fall under the broad categories of biblical studies and church history. We choose these two categories because of the importance they play in understanding Christian origins and the nature of early Christianity. Both Mormonism and evangelicalism claim to be the Church which Christ founded. Both claim to be the heirs of New Testament Christianity. Both cannot be correct. It is then appropriate to focus on these disciplines because knowing what the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians were and whether or not the Church which Christ founded apostatized is the central issue of contention. We realize that what we say will not be welcomed by all, especially by some in the counter-cult movement. Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on our fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it. But this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. It is our deep hope that this paper will, in some small way, serve to awaken members of the evangelical community to the important task at hand.

Are you referring to the direct plaigarism(sp) of the Bible, the poor use of King James English contained in the BOM, or both?

Which one are you referring to? And could you please explain how it is plagiarism?