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

[shalamabobbi]

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.

I guess you didn't read the whole post..

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.

I guess a living prophet carries more authority with me than the dead sea scrolls do, if there's a conflict.

DC 91:5,6 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

So called Deutero-Isaiah theory

Isaiah Scroll better than KJV?

freaken' scholars.. If you don't have a testimony and you don't believe in a God that communicates with his children through prophets, why do you spend so much time and energy studying their words??

[phaedrus ut]

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.

This sounds interesting and I've heard allusions to this concept but only rather recently. Has anyone published on the theory?

Just a few basic questions. A translation done previously by Moroni or some other figure. This was done between 1611 and 1828 and this translator pre-prepared a english text to giving Joseph including the KJV of the bible? If Joseph didn't need the plates why would you say they were necessary?

Phaedrus

[phaedrus ut]

I guess you didn't read the whole post..

I didn't that was the confusion it was completely irrelevant to the points I made.

I guess a living prophet carries more authority with me than the dead sea scrolls do, if there's a conflict.

DC 91:5,6 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

So when those words were added in the 1838 version they were done by prophetic inspiration? What about the prophet that later removed the addition? Or the church committee that added it back again in the 1920's is there a particular authority that one here is more correct than the others?

So called Deutero-Isaiah theory

Isaiah Scroll better than KJV?

freaken' scholars.. If you don't have a testimony and you don't believe in a God that communicates with his children through prophets, why do you spend so much time and energy studying their words??

I've read Schindler's writing on the subject before. It's the same or similar article on the FAIR site. Are you going to discuss the points where you think either article rebutts my point or adds to the discussion or are we just

?

Phaedrus

[shalamabobbi]

So if I can't rely on a prophet, why would I rely on you or the 'inspiration' of anyone else?

What makes the Isaiah scroll more or less accurate than KJV? And since we don't have an original how do we know where the Isaiah scroll differs from it?

If the Lord gave the translation in general agreement with KJV is He not giving it according to the understanding of people of our time? Should He have given it in a way to agree with the scroll? And would that not have caused a riot from scholars with arguments of sophistry proir to the discovery of the scroll? And what if in another 30 years an older scroll is discovered and doesn't agree with either the KJV or the present scroll? Should the translation have been made to agree with that?

What is Isaiah but another prophet, another Joseph Smith, from a previous era? If Joseph is uninspired what can we say about Isaiah? Or any other prophet for that matter? And if Joseph does not fulfill the prophecies about the restoration who on earth in your view does? And if you don't believe in the restoration why do you masquerade as a member of the church? Or why do you devote time and energy to the subject at hand? Is it a hobby?

So when those words were added in the 1838 version they were done by prophetic inspiration? What about the prophet that later removed the addition? Or the church committee that added it back again in the 1920's is there a particular authority that one here is more correct than the others?

I think the reason stated is entirely justified. If the Lord wanted the original intent to be understood, and it wasn't being communicated, then He could add the clarification as necessary, yes. After all it was He who gave the original revelation to the prophet Isaiah and to what end? To communicate some thought to His children. And the communication of that thought, the intent, is what is important..

[Sargon]

This sounds interesting and I've heard allusions to this concept but only rather recently. Has anyone published on the theory?

Just a few basic questions. A translation done previously by Moroni or some other figure. This was done between 1611 and 1828 and this translator pre-prepared a english text to giving Joseph including the KJV of the bible? If Joseph didn't need the plates why would you say they were necessary?

Phaedrus

I think Joseph still needed the plates. If I recall correctly, Joseph initially sat down and actually tried to work out some of the inscriptions by himself without the translator, in which endeavor we can suppose he believed the Lord would inspire him. This exercise may have accomplished a few important prerequisites to obtaining the translation from Moroni through the U&T.

For one, Joseph demonstrated that he was serious about the job and was willing to do his best (try on his own) before going to the Lord. Joseph's later teachings affirm that God appreciates that approach. (Edit: I'm quite unsure that Joseph attempted this, so this point might be invalid).

Secondly, the presence of the plates bolstered the reality of the task in Joseph's mind. It gave this farmer something concrete to wrap his hands around and believe in. Joseph wasn't allowed to believe that the words he was receiving through the U&T were just a parable, a faithful myth, or a religious fiction.

I think the plates also served other purposes. If ancient prophets really did lug those things around and pour their heart and soul into preserving the record they would have been glad to see the eventual publisher of the record actually handle and safeguard the plates as well. Their hard work might have seemed less efficient if the record wasn't even seen or appreciated by anyone!

Also, the plates serve as a crutch for the saints to lean on, and a thorn in the side of unbelievers. The testimonies of the witnesses to the plates were essential to the growth of the early church.

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

[MormonMason]

This sounds interesting and I've heard allusions to this concept but only rather recently. Has anyone published on the theory?

....

That would be affirmative. Both a member and a non-member had things to say relative to this in the early 1900s.

[MormonMason]

...

So when those words were added in the 1838 version they were done by prophetic inspiration? What about the prophet that later removed the addition? Or the church committee that added it back again in the 1920's is there a particular authority that one here is more correct than the others?

...

There was no 1838 edition. 1830, 1837, 1840 editions edited by Joseph Smith there were. The modification and addition of the phrase was put into the 1840 edition by Joseph Smith as a clarification. Unfortunately, the 1837 edition was used as the basis for the 1879 edition and, so, the 1840 edition modification was missed for that edition. That was Orson Pratt's doing.

The 1920 edition is where the modification was put back where it belonged. That was done by committee under the direction of the President of the Church, with James E. Talmage heading the committee. Unfortunately, the committee did not put back everything that Joseph Smith edited. That would have to wait until the 1981 edition.

I speak of the "pure and delightsome" reading which Joseph Smith himself put into the 1840 edition in place of the "white and delightsome" reading--after consulting with the Original Manuscript before its being damaged by moisture in the cornerstone--but which got omitted by using the 1837 edition as the basis for the 1879 edition.

[AndyOne]

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?

This has, at times, been a problem for me in terms of credibility of the witnesses. I think it is so obvious that the KJV was used that the witnesses who reported otherwise were being less than truthful or didn't know.

[phaedrus ut]

This has, at times, been a problem for me in terms of credibility of the witnesses. I think it is so obvious that the KJV was used that the witnesses who reported otherwise were being less than truthful or didn't know.

I'm in big agreement with you here Andy. It is very obvious that the KJV was used. I think many people are hesitant to concede this point because once you put a physical bible in the mix it only creates more problems. If you believe the testimony of the witnesses then you have to assume a secret process where these exact KJV quotes make it into the room. Notes in the bottom of the hat? A open bible behind the curtain? The other option is putting a open KJV there and for some reason the witnesses prefer not to mention it.

600 KJV verses don't make it into the BOM, most word for word errors and all, without using the physical text. Just my opinion but I think it's pretty clear.

Phaedrus