Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV

[zerinus]

Kudos to them indeed, but even if the KJV translators did their job perfectly, we would not expect an English translation produced two centuries later of a Reformed Egyptian translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53 to agree with the English wording of the KJV 99.5% of the time. This evidence proves that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV, not on the purported text of the gold plates.

I don't see the logic in that. It could be both; why couldn't it be?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Goodbye, Mr. Bowman.

Bummer. Oh well.

[zerinus]

Your qualification is highly misleading. Quoting a passage of 387 words with 99.5% verbal identity is not merely "reflective" of the KJV language in some way.

You mean like the near 99% verbal identity between the Geneva Bible and the KJV? LOL!

[zerinus]

Bummer. Oh well.

Have no fear. I am here to take the bull by the horn. But Rob is running scared of me at the moment. He is skipping my posts, and answering other people's.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have no fear. I am here to take the bull by the horn. But Rob is running scared of me at the moment. He is skipping my posts, and answering other people's.

I am sure Rob will get to you. He is a busy guy and there is a rather large amount of posts in such a short time.

One thing about Rob, is that he is persistant and he does not back down.

[zerinus]

I'm not criticizing the BOM for being merely something less than inerrant. I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that the English Book of Mormon is directly dependent on the KJV and is therefore not an independent, inspired translation of a Reformed Egyptian translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53.

But you have not proves that the two propositions are incompatible or mutually exclusive. The translators of the KJV set out to make an "independent" translation; but that did not mean ignoring the contributions of their predecessors. The BOM is an independent translation as much as the KJV, but in keeping with the tradition of good Bible translation, it does not disregard the noble labors and contributions of earlier translators.

[Mark Beesley]

Rob, you had asked:

"Of course, God can quote the KJV, but would he? What about those places where the KJV is inaccurate?"

I replied that those questions are better asked directly of God rather than me, and you suggested that I had not answered the questions, rather:

Actually, you just ducked them.

I plead guilty. Anytime anyone asks me to get inside of God's head, I'm going to duck the question, unless I have a specific scriptural reference for my answer. Your questions do not have answers in the scriptures. It is well to remember what God told Isaiah:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

Isaiah 55:8

Have a nice day.

Mark

[zerinus]

If Joseph Smith didn't use the KJV in producing the Book of Mormon, then whatever supernatural being you wish to claim inspired his translation must have used the KJV. Is this your position?

That is nearly my position, though not quite. I believe that the KJV is such a good translation already that it does not require a lot of changes in it to improve on it. If you look at all the direct quotes form Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, you will find that the texts are not always identical. Significant variations do exist between them, though the wording for the most part is the same. You are falling into error here because you are focusing on Isaiah 53, and ignoring the rest. It may turn out that the translation of Isaiah 53 is already so good that no changes are needed to be made in it at all. But in other passages quoted in the Book of Mormon, notably in the lengthy passages quoted in 2 Nephi, significant emendations have been made where required.

[Vance]

Have no fear. I am here to take the bull by the horn. But Rob is running scared of me at the moment. He is skipping my posts, and answering other people's.

He put me on ignore some time back. I can only presume that it was because my comments were so devastating to his arguments.

Of course, his ignoring them doesn't in any way strengthen his argument.

[Vance]

I am sure Rob will get to you. He is a busy guy and there is a rather large amount of posts in such a short time.

One thing about Rob, is that he is persistant and he does not back down.

Nor does he easily admit when he is wrong.

[bluebell]

I'm not aware of any believing Latter-day Saint who would agree with the presumption made by the two of you here, but do enjoy your mutual back-slapping, high fives, and guffaws.

They're revealing.

.

And kind of odd since isn't mortal man an atheist who believes the bible is manmade myth?

(My apologies Mortal Man if i've confused you with someone else and gotten your beliefs wrong-in such a case the partnership would make complete sense).

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I think you and Mortal Man should discuss what he thinks of the Bible. I suspect you won't find it so amusing.

This is a two-edged sword, you know.

I don't find everything he says with which I agree humorous. But he did make a couple of funny remarks. And I'd be happy to talk about the Bible with him.

[Gervin]

He put me on ignore some time back. I can only presume that it was because my comments were so devastating to his arguments.

riiiiiiiiiiiight, & the mods have never called you down for being a complete horse's arse.

[consiglieri]

For what it is worth, I consider this issue of KJV passages (and series of chapters!) quoted almost verbatim in the Book of Mormon to be the single most difficult problem facing those arguing for its supernatural origin. (The only thing making it worse is New Testament passages.)

I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory answer for it.

(Heck, I have yet to even hear an answer that makes any sense, except for Sidney Sperry's idea that Joseph Smith simply had a Bible with him and used it freely.)

But as Phaedrus demonstrated on page 3, latching onto that particular answer may be akin to opening Pandora's box.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[WalkerW]

Somewhat off topic:

If anyone is up for posting New Testament quotations of the LXX that disagree with the Hebrew, feel free to indulge my lack of time and slight laziness to do the research myself (not that I'm unaware of those that are mistranslations, but it would be nice to have them all in one sitting).

[zerinus]

I am sure Rob will get to you. He is a busy guy and there is a rather large amount of posts in such a short time.

One thing about Rob, is that he is persistant and he does not back down.

Let's wait and see. I am a patient guy!

[zerinus]

For what it is worth, I consider this issue of KJV passages (and series of chapters!) quoted almost verbatim in the Book of Mormon to be the single most difficult problem facing those arguing for its supernatural origin.

Have you tried answering the question why, rather than taking for granted that your position must be the default one?

There are some of us who don't find that such a "difficult problem" after all, you know.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I'm not talking about inerrancy. You obviously miss my point, so I'll explain it again.

1- Both JS and the NT authors had a standard translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint for the Apostles, the KJV for JS.

2- Both JS and the inspired NT writers sometimes quoted the standard cultural translation (LXX or KJV) even when it did not match the Hebrew Bible.

So my question is: why are the inspired NT writers inspired when they don't correct translation errors in the LXX, while JS is not inspired when he does not correct translation errors in the KJV?

When JS is simply quoting the KJV, and is not claiming to correct its translation errors, there's no problem with him using the KJV and not correcting its errors.

However, when JS is supposedly not quoting the KJV, and yet he is clearly dependent on the KJV, there is a problem.

(1) When JS claims to be translating into English a Reformed Egyptian translation of a Nephite quotation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53, and his English "translation" corresponds 99.7% to the wording of the KJV, this is evidence that JS was not producing his supposed translation by divine inspiration via the method reported, but was in fact dependent on the KJV.

(2) When JS claims to be correcting the translation errors of the KJV, and his corrections are almost entirely in the categories of (a) trivial modernizations of the English text, (b) alterations for which there is no support in the ancient versions, and even © supposed corrections that betray a simple misunderstanding of the KJV, while (d) he misses significant errors in the immediate contexts of his trivial changes, these data constitute evidence that JS was not inspired in his supposedly inspired work of correcting the KJV.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Clearly, I have offended you. I apologize for doing so and hope you will forgive me.

Goodbye, Mr. Bowman.

[ELF1024]

When JS is simply quoting the KJV, and is not claiming to correct its translation errors, there's no problem with him using the KJV and not correcting its errors.

However, when JS is supposedly not quoting the KJV, and yet he is clearly dependent on the KJV, there is a problem.

(1) When JS claims to be translating into English a Reformed Egyptian translation of a Nephite quotation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53, and his English "translation" corresponds 99.7% to the wording of the KJV, this is evidence that JS was not producing his supposed translation by divine inspiration via the method reported, but was in fact dependent on the KJV.

(2) When JS claims to be correcting the translation errors of the KJV, and his corrections are almost entirely in the categories of (a) trivial modernizations of the English text, (b) alterations for which there is no support in the ancient versions, and even

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

You mean like the near 99% verbal identity between the Geneva Bible and the KJV? LOL!

According to Royal Skousen, "For Isaiah 53, 88 percent of the King James text is identical with the Geneva Bible" ("Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch [FARMS, 1998], 376).

The BOM quotation of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14, on the other hand, is 99.7% identical with the KJV. For reasons I have already explained, this fact cries out for a better, less ad hoc explanation than that God quoted the KJV.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

This is all *in your opinion* Mr. Bowman.

Really? I thought it was someone else's opinion. I stand corrected.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

But you have not proves that the two propositions are incompatible or mutually exclusive. The translators of the KJV set out to make an "independent" translation; but that did not mean ignoring the contributions of their predecessors. The BOM is an independent translation as much as the KJV, but in keeping with the tradition of good Bible translation, it does not disregard the noble labors and contributions of earlier translators.

Your argument here overlooks the obvious: The BOM is not supposed to be a translation of the Bible. It is supposed to be a translation of the BOM, written in Reformed Egyptian, quoting a Nephite who was quoting Isaiah 53. The KJV and other English translations of the Bible should not have any direct relationship with the text of the BOM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

When JS is simply quoting the KJV, and is not claiming to correct its translation errors, there's no problem with him using the KJV and not correcting its errors.

However, when JS is supposedly not quoting the KJV, and yet he is clearly dependent on the KJV, there is a problem.

(1) When JS claims to be translating into English a Reformed Egyptian translation of a Nephite quotation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53, and his English "translation" corresponds 99.7% to the wording of the KJV, this is evidence that JS was not producing his supposed translation by divine inspiration via the method reported, but was in fact dependent on the KJV.

(2) When JS claims to be correcting the translation errors of the KJV, and his corrections are almost entirely in the categories of (a) trivial modernizations of the English text, (b) alterations for which there is no support in the ancient versions, and even © supposed corrections that betray a simple misunderstanding of the KJV, while (d) he misses significant errors in the immediate contexts of his trivial changes, these data constitute evidence that JS was not inspired in his supposedly inspired work of correcting the KJV.

Do you find it problematic when an apostle, writing inspired/inerrant scripture, purportedly quotes a Hebrew prophecy to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but quotes a Greek version that uses a different key word than the original Hebrew? If not, why not?

Can someone be divinely inspired to quote the KJV to an English-speaking culture for which the KJV is the definitive translation, and which has no access to the Hebrew original, and which would not have recognized the text as a passage from Isaiah if it had not been quoted in the KJV.

Can God inspire a prophet to make a scriptural quotation that is theologically-based rather than linguistically-based?

[zerinus]

Bill,

You wrote:

When JS is simply quoting the KJV, and is not claiming to correct its translation errors, there's no problem with him using the KJV and not correcting its errors.

However, when JS is supposedly not quoting the KJV, and yet he is clearly dependent on the KJV, there is a problem.

(1) When JS claims to be translating into English a Reformed Egyptian translation of a Nephite quotation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53, and his English "translation" corresponds 99.7% to the wording of the KJV, this is evidence that JS was not producing his supposed translation by divine inspiration via the method reported, but was in fact dependent on the KJV.

(2) When JS claims to be correcting the translation errors of the KJV, and his corrections are almost entirely in the categories of (a) trivial modernizations of the English text, (b) alterations for which there is no support in the ancient versions, and even © supposed corrections that betray a simple misunderstanding of the KJV, while (d) he misses significant errors in the immediate contexts of his trivial changes, these data constitute evidence that JS was not inspired in his supposedly inspired work of correcting the KJV.

Joseph Smith is doing neither. He is translating by the