Did Joseph Smith Copy Any Of The Kjv For The Book Of Mormon?

[Joseph Antley]

I think the topic and poll are pretty specific. Did Joseph Smith ever use a physical Bible during the translation process? If not, then how did masses of the KJV text with small alterations get in it? If you don't think he did, would him using a Bible during the translation make it any less of a miracle? For those who do believe he did, how does this square with the accounts of witnesses, particlarly Emma's?

I'm sorry for non-LDS in the poll, but I figured 99+% of them would agree that he did use a KJV.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If both books were inspired by the same "Author", Jesus Christ and where the Bible got the wording correct would they not be the same?

[Joseph Antley]

If both books were inspired by the same "Author", Jesus Christ and where the Bible got the wording correct would they not be the same?

No, two different books are still different books even if they are written by the same author. But that's not what the question's about. It's just a simple did Joseph have a Bible open that he read/copied from or not.

[Zeta-Flux]

Joseph,

I think there are other options, such as "Was there a *mental* copy of the KJV open during translation process?" I don't understand exactly how it worked, but God used Joseph's vocabulary (at least to some extant) so I don't see why He couldn't use Joseph's understanding of the scriptures.

I believe it is just as likely that Joseph memorized those chapters and God had them regurgitated (mostly) vs. God inspired him to open the Bible and (mostly) copy chapters from Isaiah to fit with the BOM text.

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph,

I think there are other options, such as "Was there a *mental* copy of the KJV open during translation process?" I don't understand exactly how it worked, but God used Joseph's vocabulary (at least to some extant) so I don't see why He couldn't use Joseph's understanding of the scriptures.

I believe it is just as likely that Joseph memorized those chapters and God had them regurgitated (mostly) vs. God inspired him to open the Bible and (mostly) copy chapters from Isaiah to fit with the BOM text.

So do you think Joseph had the entire KJV memorized, or just had the particular chapters he needed memorized? If the latter, do you think he was inspired to memorize those chapters? If so, I don't see much difference with that than with Joseph just copying them right out of the book.

[lukas_s]

I believe he used a KJV for much of the Isaiah portions of 2 Nephi, mostly because the errors that are found in KJV Isaiah also pop up in 2 Nephi, and I don't believe that to be a coincidence. As for how this squares with certain testimonial accounts, well, I can honestly say I have no clue. I don't think he memorized lengthy portions of the Bible to place into the Book of Mormon, and I don't think Book of Mormon dictation just happened to coincide with his own personal Bible study. Perhaps the period where there was a physical blockade between the Prophet and his scribe (the curtain shielding the Prophet from view) was when Joseph used the KJV. I'm not comfortable stating how or when he did it, just as I'm not comfortable stating that he absolutely did not use the KJV when many of the same errors show up in the BoM.

Doesn't lessen my opinion that he was a Prophet, however.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No, two different books are still different books even if they are written by the same author. But that's not what the question's about. It's just a simple did Joseph have a Bible open that he read/copied from or not.

No...but I do think he had a photograpic memory. According to Oliver no such thing occured.

[Buckeye]

I believe the KJV was used to some degree. But as posted elsewhere, I believe the translation (and thus any use of the KJV) was done by either Mormon or Moroni. Joseph simply dictated an existing translation. He did not translate from reformed egyptian to english.

[Lightbearer]

I voted that he did use the KJV either literally or from memory in the translation process. It does not lessen the truth of the Book of Mormon in my eyes. I have heard speculation to the effect that he did use the KJV in this manner although I have never seen any official documentation to prove it one way or another. Although I am not sure how versed the prophet was in this time of his life in the Bible, I do know that his language and manner of speaking often echoed the phrases of the Biblical texts, that clearly indicate that he had a vast knowledge of the Bible. In fact I own a version of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that has annotations noting the quotes in the prophets language that clearly indicates that he became and was very well versed in the Biblical language and constantly quoted phrases in his discourses and writings. The book I refer to is "The Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," and is far superior to the traditional edition of TPJS, in that it clearly shows the prophet's understanding of the Bible.

[Jason]

I don't think that any physical copy of the KJV was present during the translation process, because that's what the witnesses to it say.

I do think that Joseph was making a conscious attempt to emulate the KJV in his word choices for his translation, and I also believe that a real translation was being made - I believe Joseph made the word choices that seemed to best match the meaning of the text to him as revealed to him, not that he was merely taking dictation.

I consider it entirely possible that under the influence of the spirit Joseph remembered the KJV passages of Isaiah he had read with perfect clarity and used those as a guide to his own translation, although he also changed words where they did not match the meaning on the plates closely enough.

I have often heard it said that the BoM repeats translation errors from the KJV in its quotations from Isaiah, but have never seen a list or explanation of exactly what errors this is referring to. Does anyone have a list or explanation?

[aletheia]

This is a criticism that may occur when the Book of Mormon is read by someone who has a well established belief in the King James translation of the New Testament scriptures. There are, indeed, many places in the Book of Mormon where phrases and passages are similar or identical to passages in the New Testament. Detractors have sought to show that the Book of Mormon is untrue by uncovering these passages as anachronisms, meaning something which is out of chronological order. Since the New Testament was written after many of the portions of the Book of Mormon which have similar passages (which are too numerous to number), it has been stated by opponents of the great ancient American record that Joseph Smith merely plagiarized the Bible in order to construct the Book of Mormon. This, of course, is not true.

While similarities do exist, they must be considered in light of the overall context of the narratives. Most often, when writings from the Book of Mormon and the Bible overlap (save for the Isaiah and Matthew accounts in the Book of Mormon) the authors are speaking in totally different contexts. It is likely that while Joseph Smith was using the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon that he was required to put things into his own words. Being quite familiar with the Bible, the prophet, no doubt, drew upon the rich phraseology therein when it applied to the meaning he was attempting to render. There is nothing inherently pernicious in this and it can be shown that other translators have fostered similar practices.

On the other hand, it is possible on many occasions that Joseph Smith was not using New Testament phraseology at all, but that the scriptures in the Book of Mormon and the scriptures in the Bible come from a common Old World source which is now lost to us. We know that the Brass plates of Laban contained an extensive record of the people and prophets of ancient Jerusalem. We also know that many of the ancient Israelite prophets left writings which are not to be found in either the apocrypha or the Old Testament. A good example of this is found in Matthew 2:23 which states that the prophets of old foretold that Christ would be called a Nazarene. There is no Old Testament allusion to this prophecy nor is it mentioned in the apocrypha. The prophecy comes from a source which is now lost to us.

Among the lost prophets that are quoted in the Book of Mormon is a man named Zenos. Zenos tells a parable concerning the gospel and the Gentiles, using an Olive tree as his metaphorical device (incidentally, olive trees do not grow anywhere in the U.S. except for the dry valleys of California and on the gulf coast of Louisiana. Yet, the author of the parable of the wild and tame olive trees displays a thorough understanding of the plantâ??s curious ability to escape cultivation. It is doubtful that Joseph Smith would have known this despite the statement in Romans 11:17 which is very brief and which, indeed, may be quoted by Paul from writings of Zenos that were extant in his day). Zenos is quoted as saying â??â?¦The last that they may be first, and the first that they may be lastâ?¦â? (Jacob 5:63) In light of the fact that Christ made a similar statement in reference to the Gentiles it is very possible that he was paraphrasing Zenos in Matthew 20:16. However, this kind of speculative digression could go on forever. The important point to remember is that there are no aspersions cast upon the Book of Mormon because of its having passages which are similar to portions of the New Testament. Furthermore, could not God allow himself the privilege of saying the same thing twice?

[MormonMason]

All witnesses to the translation are unanimous that Joseph Smith had no books or manuscripts or papers near him during the dictation. And, Joseph Smith had his head buried in a hat. How would he have been using a Bible?

[Sargon]

All witnesses to the translation are unanimous that Joseph Smith had no books or manuscripts or papers near him during the dictation. And, Joseph Smith had his head buried in a hat. How would he have been using a Bible?

Yep. A bible certainly may have been around, but Joseph certainly did not use it.

I'm with Buckeye on this one.

[Sargon]

I think the "Moroni-as-translator" hypothesis ties together much of the data in a way that other hypothesi don't. It essentially solves the riddle about how Hebraisms could appear in a text being translated by someone who doesn't know hebrew, and how elements of both tight and loose control in the translation can appear in the text.

Sure, it leaves a few things to be explained. For example, it doesn't completely explain the meaning of "study it out in your mind", but neither does the traditional hypothesis (in my opinion). In science, there can be a few outliers. We can tweak the hypothesis as we go. For now, it seems to me that the "Moroni-as-translator" hypothesis accounts for the largest amount of data.

An excellent in-house discussion.

Sargon

[MormonMason]

Yep. A bible certainly may have been around, but Joseph certainly did not use it.

I'm with Buckeye on this one.

If he had a Bible, why did he have to call for one and borrow it to look things up during breaks between the translation?

Joseph Smith did not buy his own Bible until he and Oliver Cowdery pitched in together to buy one months after the translation already was done.

[Sargon]

If he had a Bible, why did he have to call for one and borrow it to look things up during breaks between the translation?

Joseph Smith did not buy his own Bible until he and Oliver Cowdery pitched in together to buy one months after the translation already was done.

I don't think we disagree. Like I said, a bible was around. It was available for infrequent consultation. Nevertheless, there is no indication that one was used during any part of the dictation.

[shalamabobbi]

This is a good thread to mention a distinction between the BOM and KJ versions of one scripture, ISA 2:16 vs 2Ne 12:16.

Isa2:16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

2Ne 12:16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

This verse also contains a remarkable demonstration of the integrity of the brass plates (of Laban). In the Greek or Septuagint version, there is a phrase that is not in the Hebrew version; and the Hebrew version has a phrase that is not in the Greek. But the Book of Mormon version taken from the brass plates has both of them! from Skousen, Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times

[Sargon]

This is a good thread to mention a distinction between the BOM and KJ versions of one scripture, ISA 2:16 vs 2Ne 12:16.

Isa2:16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

2Ne 12:16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

This verse also contains a remarkable demonstration of the integrity of the brass plates (of Laban). In the Greek or Septuagint version, there is a phrase that is not in the Hebrew version; and the Hebrew version has a phrase that is not in the Greek. But the Book of Mormon version taken from the brass plates has both of them! from Skousen, Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times

To my knowledge, and I can't remember the exact reasons why, we (LDS apologists) don't put much stock into that anymore.

I could be mistaken though.

[phaedrus ut]

This is a good thread to mention a distinction between the BOM and KJ versions of one scripture, ISA 2:16 vs 2Ne 12:16.

Isa2:16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

2Ne 12:16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

This verse also contains a remarkable demonstration of the integrity of the brass plates (of Laban). In the Greek or Septuagint version, there is a phrase that is not in the Hebrew version; and the Hebrew version has a phrase that is not in the Greek. But the Book of Mormon version taken from the brass plates has both of them! from Skousen, Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times

That verse by some is seen by some as evidence of ancient origins. However others see it as a specific example of how the BOM Isaiah translations were taken from a extant text and not a translation of a older document. A good read on the subject Does 'and upon all the ships of the sea' Reflect an Ancient Isaian Variant?

The other thing that is unique about the KJV and Isaiah is how Isaiah is reproduced in word for word fashion. You could expect two different translators like the KJV translators and Joseph to translate verses that match in idea, message, and content but not complete word for word correspondence. Even the variants where the BOM Isaiah chooses to differ from the KJV show a dependence on the KJV text. The KJV used italics for words which did not have a match in the original biblical language and even though the italicized words only account for 3% of the words in the KJV it account for 40% of the variants in the BOM Isaiah. see Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon - Tvedtnes

Some may choose to a supernatural explanation or a photographic memory explanation but the KJV is clearly the source text of the Book of Mormon.

Phaedrus

[William James]

I think the topic and poll are pretty specific. Did Joseph Smith ever use a physical Bible during the translation process? If not, then how did masses of the KJV text with small alterations get in it? If you don't think he did, would him using a Bible during the translation make it any less of a miracle? For those who do believe he did, how does this square with the accounts of witnesses, particlarly Emma's?

I'm sorry for non-LDS in the poll, but I figured 99+% of them would agree that he did use a KJV.

The KJV contains an error in its translation of the commandment "Thou shalt not murder." KJV falsely states, "Thou shalt not kill." To murder is to kill a person without justification, while killing can be either justified or unjustified. Abinadi's speech to Noah, et al. states "Thou shalt not kill." Either Abinadi had some serious time-travel equipment and had access to the KJV produced ~2000 years later, or Joseph Smith used it in bringing forth the BoM.

This does not mean, of course, that JS necessarily was taking breaks from looking into the seer stones to look at the KJV, but he probably was extremely well-versed in the KJV, and it must have had an influence on him. For those who consider the BoM an authentic, generally-correctly-translated, historic document, it is a perfectly plausible (and nearly inescapable) conclusion that JS, while translating, simply recognized that certain passages recited by BoM prophets were identical or nearly identical to the Bible, and that JS simply got lazy while translating and copied the passages according to his own personal familiarity rather than by a word for word translation.

[Sargon]

That verse by some is seen by some as evidence of ancient origins. However others see it as a specific example of how the BOM Isaiah translations were taken from a extant text and not a translation of a older document. A good read on the subject Does 'and upon all the ships of the sea' Reflect an Ancient Isaian Variant?

The other thing that is unique about the KJV and Isaiah is how Isaiah is reproduced in word for word fashion. You could expect two different translators like the KJV translators and Joseph to translate verses that match in idea, message, and content but not complete word for word correspondence. Even the variants where the BOM Isaiah chooses to differ from the KJV show a dependence on the KJV text. The KJV used italics for words which did not have a match in the original biblical language and even though the italicized words only account for 3% of the words in the KJV it account for 40% of the variants in the BOM Isaiah. see Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon - Tvedtnes

Some may choose to a supernatural explanation or a photographic memory explanation but the KJV is clearly the source text of the Book of Mormon.

Phaedrus

And what of the fact that all witnesses are unanimous that Joseph did not consult or use a bible during the dictation? Clearly the KJV was used. Clearly Joseph was not the one who used it.

[phaedrus ut]

And what of the fact that all witnesses are unanimous that Joseph did not consult or use a bible during the dictation?

I agree. There seems to be a strong agreement among the witnesses to the translation process on this point.

Clearly the KJV was used.

I agree. I think it's obvious to anyone that looks at it.

Clearly Joseph was not the one who used it.

Maybe he read the bible remotely like he did the parchment of John like he did in D&C 7. But if you are going to remote view something why not the oldest Isaiah scroll on the planet... maybe like the Great Isaiah Scroll from the DSS and not repeat the translation errors from the KJV.

Maybe it was completely from memory. A great feat but possible I suppose.

Maybe someone changed the plates between when the KJV was prepared and when Joseph got the plates.

Only one solution makes sense to me.

Phaedrus

[shalamabobbi]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...rs_from_the_KJV

I think maybe not everybody on this board is as interested in the opinions of self-appointed scholars as they might be in what can be learned about what God taught in other dispensations and how that has been elucidated by a modern prophet..

Another interesting one is Isa 48:1 vs 1 Ne 20:1

Isa 48:1 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.

1 Ne 20:1 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.

Skousen again,

Through the waters of baptism, Israel has entered into a covenant to always remember the Lord and keep his commandments. Unfortunately, they have not made this covenant with truth in their hearts, nor have they done it in a spirit of righteousness.

It is interesting that the excavations around the temple site in Jerusalem have revealed numerous baptismal fonts which archaeologists refer to as "ceremonial baths." Today, the Jewish people have virtually abandoned the rite of baptism, although they have carefully preserved the ritual of circumcision. Significantly, circumcision was given to God's people in the days of Abraham to remind them of baptism! The Lord said:

"My people have gone astray from my precepts, and have not kept mine ordinances, which I gave unto their fathers;

And they have not observed mine anointing, and the burial, Or baptism wherewith I commanded them;

But have turned from the commandment, and taken unto themselves the washing of children, and the blood of sprinkling." JST, Genesis 17:4-6

This would suggest that the people were participating in infant baptism and sprinkling their children with blood after the manner of the heathens. The Lord said the ordinance of circumcision was being introduced so that when male children were circumcised on the eighth day it would remind them that their children were to be baptized in their eighth year. The Lord said that "children are not accountable before me (or eligible for baptism) until they are eight years old." JST Genesis 17:11

The procedure for going down into "the waters of Judah" or baptism is described by James Hastings as follows: Each candidate was taken "to a pool, in which he stood up to his neck in water, while the great commandments of the Law were recited to him. These he promised to keep. Then a benediction was pronounced, and he plunged beneath the water, taking care to be entirely submerged." (James Hastings, ed.,A Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols with index [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898], 1:239, s.v. "Baptism.")

Before leaving this verse we should also point out that the original text of Isaiah did not clarify "the waters of Judah" as meaning "the waters of baptism." Since that is what it meant to the people in ancient times Isaiah did not feel it was necessary to further clarify it. As a matter of fact, in the first edition of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith left it in its original form. However, since modern readers of the Bible do not interpret "the waters of Judah" as "the waters of baptism," he decided to spell out its true significance when the second edition of the Book of Mormon was published. (See Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967], p. 151.) The clarifying words, "or of the waters of baptism," have been included in 1 Ne 20:1 ever since.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/bap.html

[phaedrus ut]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...rs_from_the_KJV

I think maybe not everybody on this board is as interested in the opinions of self-appointed scholars as they might be in what can be learned about what God taught in other dispensations and how that has been elucidated by a modern prophet..

I have know idea what this is supposed to mean?

Another interesting one is Isa 48:1 vs 1 Ne 20:1

Isa 48:1 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.

1 Ne 20:1 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.

Skousen again,

Through the waters of baptism, Israel has entered into a covenant to always remember the Lord and keep his commandments. Unfortunately, they have not made this covenant with truth in their hearts, nor have they done it in a spirit of righteousness.

It is interesting that the excavations around the temple site in Jerusalem have revealed numerous baptismal fonts which archaeologists refer to as "ceremonial baths." Today, the Jewish people have virtually abandoned the rite of baptism, although they have carefully preserved the ritual of circumcision. Significantly, circumcision was given to God's people in the days of Abraham to remind them of baptism! The Lord said:

"My people have gone astray from my precepts, and have not kept mine ordinances, which I gave unto their fathers;

And they have not observed mine anointing, and the burial, Or baptism wherewith I commanded them;

But have turned from the commandment, and taken unto themselves the washing of children, and the blood of sprinkling." JST, Genesis 17:4-6

This would suggest that the people were participating in infant baptism and sprinkling their children with blood after the manner of the heathens. The Lord said the ordinance of circumcision was being introduced so that when male children were circumcised on the eighth day it would remind them that their children were to be baptized in their eighth year. The Lord said that "children are not accountable before me (or eligible for baptism) until they are eight years old." JST Genesis 17:11

The procedure for going down into "the waters of Judah" or baptism is described by James Hastings as follows: Each candidate was taken "to a pool, in which he stood up to his neck in water, while the great commandments of the Law were recited to him. These he promised to keep. Then a benediction was pronounced, and he plunged beneath the water, taking care to be entirely submerged." (James Hastings, ed.,A Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols with index [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898], 1:239, s.v. "Baptism.")

Before leaving this verse we should also point out that the original text of Isaiah did not clarify "the waters of Judah" as meaning "the waters of baptism." Since that is what it meant to the people in ancient times Isaiah did not feel it was necessary to further clarify it. As a matter of fact, in the first edition of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith left it in its original form. However, since modern readers of the Bible do not interpret "the waters of Judah" as "the waters of baptism," he decided to spell out its true significance when the second edition of the Book of Mormon was published. (See Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967], p. 151.) The clarifying words, "or of the waters of baptism," have been included in 1 Ne 20:1 ever since.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/bap.html

Well lets forget for a moment that it's very problematic to have Deutero-Isaiah quoted in the BOM. Are you trying to say the addition of the variant "or out of the waters of baptism" is a restoration of a older version here?

Well first of all these words are from the 1837 edition and were not in the original 1830 printing of the BOM. The words were merely added by Joseph as a editorial addition. And for the record this reading is not confirmed by other Isaiah texts. In this instance the "waters of Judah" are actually the "seed" to come from the loins, literally "from inner parts", of of Judah(yes those kinds of waters). This is also confirmed by 1QIsa The Great Isaiah Scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Phaedrus

[Sargon]

I agree. There seems to be a strong agreement among the witnesses to the translation process on this point.

I agree. I think it's obvious to anyone that looks at it.

Maybe he read the bible remotely like he did the parchment of John like he did in D&C 7. But if you are going to remote view something why not the oldest Isaiah scroll on the planet... maybe like the Great Isaiah Scroll from the DSS and not repeat the translation errors from the KJV.

Maybe it was completely from memory. A great feat but possible I suppose.

Maybe someone changed the plates between when the KJV was prepared and when Joseph got the plates.

Only one solution makes sense to me.

Phaedrus

I ascribe to the "Moroni-as-translator" hypothesis. In this scenario, Joseph didn't know how to translate Reformed Egyptian, but was given a translation through the U&T which he read off to his scribe. The translation was done previously by Moroni, or some other figure.

As for the KJV translation errors, it seems Moroni wasn't concerned about it.