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

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522,

You wrote:

Rob--I've enjoyed reading your responses and while I often disagree with you, you seem to provide a good source for discussion. I'd like to join this conversation.

Sure.

You wrote:

This appears to me to be the crux of the matter. You presume that God would not have provided Joseph with a translation that was almost exactly the same as the KJV--rather that (and I'm assuming here) he would have done what you would have done. What is the basis for your presumption?

I am not claiming that I think God "would have done what I would have done." The issue is not at all what I think God should have done, but whether what we are expected to believe God did is the most likely explanation of the evidence we have. Go back to my hypothetical example of the NT writers claiming to quote (in Greek) by divine revelation an Egyptian Genesis for which we have no documentary evidence and that supposedly pre-dated the Hebrew Genesis, but their quotations turns out to be virtually identical in wording to the Greek Septuagint. The reasonable explanation would be not that God quoted the Septuagint to the NT writers because it was close enough to the Egyptian Genesis but that the NT writers quoted the Septuagint because it's what they really had. It wouldn't be an effective or plausible response to argue that God could quote the Septuagint if he wanted. Sure he could, but that doesn't make it a plausible explanation.

The whole argument throughout this thread (not just in your post) largely turns on the burden of proof. Every Mormon who has taken issue with my argument has in effect assumed that unless I can absolutely, definitively disprove their imaginative hypothetical explanation for how the KJV got into the BOM, my argument falls to the ground. They, on the other hand, need no evidence whatsoever to back up their speculative explanations. It is enough that it is possible that God chose to quote the KJV when revealing the words that Joseph should use in his translation. Well, sure, it's "possible" in an abstract, hypothetical sense, but it isn't a plausible explanation. The use of the KJV in the Book of Mormon is good evidence that the author of the text was a human being familiar with the KJV. This is the default explanation, once it is established (as it has been) that the Book of Mormon uses the KJV, just as the fact that the NT authors quote the Septuagint is reasonably good proof that they were familiar with the Septuagint and were responsible for those quotations. The "presumption," in the sense of presuming something without evidence, lies on the side of those who claim that God chose to quote the KJV when revealing to Joseph what Joseph himself claimed was a divinely revealed English translation of a Reformed Egyptian text.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Please learn this fact: There is no "Reformed Egyptian" language. The "reformed Egyptian to which Moroni referred were nothing more than characters (i.e., letters); see your own message below. There was no need to translate into any form of Egyptian because that was not the language the Book of Mormon prophets used to record their sacred history.

Nephi seems to disagree with you: "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). And then there's this statement: "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children" (Mosiah 1:4). Both of these statements say that the plates were written in "the language of the Egyptians." You are probably basing your statement on the following verse: "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). But this verse does not say that only the characters were Egyptian. In fact, the next two verses make it clear that the language itself was altered: "And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof" (Mormon 9:33). So "Reformed Egyptian" seems to be a reasonably accurate name for what the BOM claims was the language in which it was written.

Sorry--there's more to your post, but I have to stop for now.

[Vance]

Every Mormon who has taken issue with my argument has in effect assumed that unless I can absolutely, definitively disprove their imaginative hypothetical explanation for how the KJV got into the BOM, my argument falls to the ground. They, on the other hand, need no evidence whatsoever to back up their speculative explanations.

That is a very interesting statement.

Let's just swap sides and topics and see how it fits.

Bowman "who has taken issue with" our "argument" against inerrancy of the Bible "has in effect assumed that" even when we "absolutely, definitively disprove" his "imaginative hypothetical explanation for how the" Bible is inerrant, our "argument falls to the ground." He, "on the other hand, need(s) no evidence whatsoever to back up" his "speculative explanation".

Yup, it fits.

And it looks worse for Bowman than it does for us.

[Mike Richards]

I am not claiming that I think God "would have done what would have done." The issue is not at all what I think God should have done, but whether what we are expected to believe God did is the most likely explanation of the evidence we have. Go back to my hypothetical example of the NT writers claiming to quote (in Greek) by divine revelation an Egyptian Genesis for which we have no documentary evidence and that supposedly pre-dated the Hebrew Genesis, but their quotations turns out to be virtually identical in wording to the Greek Septuagint. The reasonable explanation would be not that God quoted the Septuagint to the NT writers because it was close enough to the Egyptian Genesis but that the NT writers quoted the Septuagint because it's what they really had. It wouldn't be an effective or plausible response to argue that God could quote the Septuagint if he wanted. Sure he could, but that doesn't make it a plausible explanation.

The whole argument throughout this thread (not just in your post) largely turns on the burden of proof. Every Mormon who has taken issue with my argument has in effect assumed that unless I can absolutely, definitively disprove their imaginative hypothetical explanation for how the KJV got into the BOM, my argument falls to the ground. They, on the other hand, need no evidence whatsoever to back up their speculative explanations. It is enough that it is possible that God chose to quote the KJV when revealing the words that Joseph should use in his translation. Well, sure, it's "possible" in an abstract, hypothetical sense, but it isn't a plausible explanation. The use of the KJV in the Book of Mormon is good evidence that the author of the text was a human being familiar with the KJV. This is the default explanation, once it is established (as it has been) that the Book of Mormon uses the KJV, just as the fact that the NT authors quote the Septuagint is reasonably good proof that they were familiar with the Septuagint and were responsible for those quotations. The "presumption," in the sense of presuming something without evidence, lies on the side of those who claim that God chose to quote the KJV when revealing to Joseph what Joseph himself claimed was a divinely revealed English translation of a Reformed Egyptian text.

Rob,

I don't have a real problem with anything that you've said here , though there are things I might nit-pick for fun if I weren't actually interested in discussing the main point. From your response, it seems to me now that the disagreement is more on the evidence we are using to determine what is "the most likely explanation...." I think we both agree with the two points brought up previously--that witnesses state no text was used during the translation process and textual analysis points to the author/translator of Mosiah 14 using KJV Isaiah 53. If that were all the evidence we were to base our decision on, I would be inclined to agree with your conclusion, "The only reasonable conclusion is that Joseph Smith utilized the KJV in his rendering of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14," with an added, "and he must have memorized it all." If this is all the disagreement is about, a simple analogy should bring us all into agreement: A student turns in a test taken under the watchful eye of a proctor. The student had no material other than the test question, paper, and a pencil. While grading the exam, the instructor discovers that the student has reproduced verbatim an essay that had been assigned reading during the course. What is the logical conclusion for the teacher to make? The student memorized the essay and wrote it from memory.

So, like I said, if that's all the disagreement is about, I don't really disagree with you. I think, once again, that the difference between my position and yours is that I take into account other evidence, much of which has been brought up in this discussion, which reduces the likelihood of the agreed upon conclusion.

Now for a little nit-picking/side thoughts:

As far as the burden of proof, you said, "The whole argument throughout this thread (not just in your post) largely turns on the burden of proof. Every Mormon who has taken issue with my argument has in effect assumed that unless I can absolutely, definitively disprove their imaginative hypothetical explanation for how the KJV got into the BOM, my argument falls to the ground. They, on the other hand, need no evidence whatsoever to back up their speculative explanations. It is enough that it is possible that God chose to quote the KJV when revealing the words that Joseph should use in his translation." Right, and from what I've seen in the discussion, that is the right position for them to take. You have taken up a position in an apparent attempt to discredit their belief. Unless you can demonstrate that their belief is completely impossible, they are under no obligation to abandon it. In a similar vein, since it is not anyone's (it really could be, but let's pretend it's not) intention to demonstrate through superior evidence that their position is the one you should adopt (i.e. they're defending their position, not trying to bring you over), they are under no obligation to provide incontrovertible evidence, just to demonstrate possibility.

I wonder how our views of "plausibility" differ based on our world views. I assume from things I've read from you that you don't believe in present-day revelation. If this is the case, then much of what I choose to believe will seem implausible to you. When you say "sure, it's 'possible' in an abstract, hypothetical sense, but it isn't a plausible explanation," are there other reasons, besides the impossibility of modern-day revelation, that these alternative explanations are not plausible? If so, what are they?

[Pahoran]

Nephi seems to disagree with you: "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). And then there's this statement: "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children" (Mosiah 1:4). Both of these statements say that the plates were written in "the language of the Egyptians." You are probably basing your statement on the following verse: "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). But this verse does not say that only the characters were Egyptian. In fact, the next two verses make it clear that the language itself was altered: "And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof" (Mormon 9:33). So "Reformed Egyptian" seems to be a reasonably accurate name for what the BOM claims was the language in which it was written.

Sorry--there's more to your post, but I have to stop for now.

I have to admit; it's fun watching an anti-Mormon playing at Book of Mormon exegesis.

For a while, anyway.

You say that Moroni did not "say that only the characters were Egyptian;" true. But he does only say that the characters were Egyptian. The following verses refer exclusively to the alterations in how they wrote stuff. It was the script that had been altered. The Book of Mormon, when referring to writings, frequently uses "language" to mean script.

This is evident in the first passage you quoted: "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). This apparently straightforward declaration tells us several things, the most relevant to this discussion being that the language of Nephi's father "consists of" two elements. Nephi identifies these elements as "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." Clearly the word "language" has shifted its meaning between the two usages, since X + Y cannot equal X unless Y is zero, in which case why mention it? The simplest explanation is that the language of the plates consists of something from the Jews and something from the Egyptians; and since Moroni explicitly identifies the characters as Egyptian, it follows that the Egyptian contribution is the script.

Plug that into Mosiah 1:4 and it works just fine. Lehi knew the script, that's why he could read the plates.

"Reformed Egyptian" is not a proper noun. The "reformed" in Mormon 9:32 is an adjective.

Can you, even on this tiny, trivial point, admit that you were mistaken?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522,

Hi again. You wrote:

I think, once again, that the difference between my position and yours is that I take into account other evidence, much of which has been brought up in this discussion, which reduces the likelihood of the agreed upon conclusion.

I'm not sure what evidence that is.

Regarding my observation that the Mormons who have responded to my argument here have assumed that I must prove their explanations impossible, you wrote:

Right, and from what I've seen in the discussion, that is the right position for them to take. You have taken up a position in an apparent attempt to discredit their belief. Unless you can demonstrate that their belief is completely impossible, they are under no obligation to abandon it. In a similar vein, since it is not anyone's (it really could be, but let's pretend it's not) intention to demonstrate through superior evidence that their position is the one you should adopt (i.e. they're defending their position, not trying to bring you over), they are under no obligation to provide incontrovertible evidence, just to demonstrate possibility.

If they read my argument and do not try to rebut the argument, but simply say, "Well, I see your point, but based on my testimony I choose to take another view, though I have no superior evidence to present to you for it," that would fit what you say here. But the minute they try to show that my conclusion is unwarranted, they are entering into the arena of argument, reason, and evidence. They may not be trying to convince me, but they are trying to rebut my argument--and to do that they need to show that the evidence is better explained on their view than on mine.

You wrote:

I wonder how our views of "plausibility" differ based on our world views. I assume from things I've read from you that you don't believe in present-day revelation. If this is the case, then much of what I choose to believe will seem implausible to you. When you say "sure, it's 'possible' in an abstract, hypothetical sense, but it isn't a plausible explanation," are there other reasons, besides the impossibility of modern-day revelation, that these alternative explanations are not plausible? If so, what are they?

Yes. Modern revelation is not the issue here. I am not denying the possibility of modern revelation, nor is my objection in any way based on suspicion of modern revelation. I don't even personally maintain "the impossibility of modern-day revelation." It is the ad hoc nature of the explanation that is the problem, not that it involves modern-day revelation. Mormons say God supernaturally enabled Joseph Smith to translate the gold plates. Okay; assuming that is possible for the sake of argument, let's look at the evidence and see if it fits that claim. That is my method. The BOM quotes from Isaiah; we are told that Joseph Smith's translation was not copied from the KJV but was revealed to him line by line, more or less word for word; yet we can see as we examine the BOM that it is directly dependent on the KJV. The obvious, simplest, and most straightforward explanation is that Joseph Smith was quoting from the KJV, not translating an ancient Reformed Egyptian translation or quotation of Isaiah. The LDS explanation that God chose to use the KJV in his revelation to Joseph of the wording of the BOM quotations from Isaiah is ad hoc; that is, its only merit is that it saves the claim that Joseph supernaturally translated the BOM from the gold plates. (The expression ad hoc is a term used in logic to denote a claim for which no evidence exists other than its utility in salvaging a theory that appears to be in evidential trouble.)

Think about it this way. Did Joseph Smith explain that God revealed the wording of the KJV to him through the stone in his hat? No. We have no testimonial evidence to support this interpretation of what happened. It is an after-the-fact rationalization of the evidence that Joseph was dependent on the KJV for his BOM quotations from Isaiah.

I am a Christian who believes in a miracle-working God. That God can do miracles today. He can give new revelations today if he wants to do so. Numerous religions claim they are the recipient of such modern revelations. I have a responsibility to test these revelatory claims to see if they are really from God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). It is not worldview suspicion of the supernatural that drives my critique of LDS claims. You're free to disagree with my conclusions, of course, but I want you to understand that I am not doubting God's power or ability to do as he pleases.

[Tango]

Well, since the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

And, since NO ONE here knows exactly how that process worked.

How, exactly is this a problem?

A stone in a hat is the process as witnessed by Emma and scribes. Too bad Monson and others are afraid to make this known to members or prospect members.

God has nothing to do with the BoM.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

I have to admit; it's fun watching an anti-Mormon playing at Book of Mormon exegesis.

Perhaps about as much fun as watching some Mormons (I won't generalize or use a pejorative as you did) playing at biblical exegesis (and I'm not referring to you in particular).

You wrote:

You say that Moroni did not "say that only the characters were Egyptian;" true. But he does only say that the characters were Egyptian. The following verses refer exclusively to the alterations in how they wrote stuff. It was the script that had been altered. The Book of Mormon, when referring to writings, frequently uses "language" to mean script.

This is evident in the first passage you quoted: "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). This apparently straightforward declaration tells us several things, the most relevant to this discussion being that the language of Nephi's father "consists of" two elements. Nephi identifies these elements as "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." Clearly the word "language" has shifted its meaning between the two usages, since X + Y cannot equal X unless Y is zero, in which case why mention it? The simplest explanation is that the language of the plates consists of something from the Jews and something from the Egyptians; and since Moroni explicitly identifies the characters as Egyptian, it follows that the Egyptian contribution is the script.

Well, since we're playing Book of Mormon exegesis, it seems to me that your explanation requires a plausible identification of what "learning of the Jews" means in 1 Nephi 1:2. And here's the problem: the term learning appears in the immediately preceding verse, where it simply cannot mean some component of language such as grammar, vocabulary, or a combination thereof:

"I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days" (1 Ne. 1:1).

The expression "the learning of my father" is obviously parallel to "the learning of the Jews" and since it appears in the same context the two expressions should be understood to use the word learning with the same basic meaning. I take 1 Nephi 1:2 to mean that Nephi's father's language was a culturally Jewish form of Egyptian. How exactly it differed from other forms of Egyptian we are not told, except that part of the difference was some alteration of the characters. But all of the references to the language of the BOM speak of it as some form of Egyptian, and Mormon 9:33 explicitly denies that it was Hebrew.

You wrote:

"Reformed Egyptian" is not a proper noun. The "reformed" in Mormon 9:32 is an adjective.

I'm not particular about the capitalization of "reformed." The Book of Mormon claims to be written in some form of Egyptian language, with its characters modified or reformed, and the language changed in ways reflecting the Jewish cultural heritage of the Nephites. It specifically denies that it was written in Hebrew. Therefore, the quotations of Isaiah would have been translated from Hebrew into whatever form of Egyptian it was that was the language of the plates--the language that Mormon says no one else knows. Hence, my claim that the English Book of Mormon quotations from Isaiah would be translations of translations is well founded.

You wrote:

Can you, even on this tiny, trivial point, admit that you were mistaken?

Sure, if and when I see good reason to admit I was mistaken. I've already admitted a mistake earlier in this very thread; hence your insinuation that I have trouble admitting even trivial mistakes is false. But you haven't convinced me on this point.

[Thunderfire]

The bottom line is that the gold plates, when quoting Isaiah, would be giving a translation of the Hebrew. Then Joseph Smith would be giving a translation of the Reformed Egyptian--and thus, a translation of a translation.

Hello Rob!

Your bottom line here is a good point and very logical. I too believe Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a translation of a translation.

The entire Book of Mormon for me becomes mind boggling when we look at how it covers a period of time from roughly 2200 BC (Book of Ether) to 400 AD (Moroni's contribution). Think about how OUR language has changed greatly from the 1800's to today. Yes, they still spoke a form of "English" but many of us today would have difficulty even speaking with them let alone understanding entirely what they are saying. Then apply this to the Book of Mormon history and think how the language changed over two thousand years.

For me, the real issue here is not what Joseph did, but rather "Mormon" who had the daunting task of "abridging" that material with the changes in language over this vast amount of time. That in itself should cause people to stop and wonder. Yet I must admit that I am one of child like faith in the power of God to do great and marvelous things beyond my puny minds ability to comprehend!

Does it matter to me that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a translation? Not at all (frankly it would matter to me more if it wasn't). What we need to decide is this: How accurate of a translation is the King James Version to the original manuscripts as to content and message? Then too, would the people have accepted the Book of Mormon (when it came out) if Isaiah was worded differently than what they were accustomed too? So then is this an issue with Joseph or with God knowing the "minds of men"? In my opinion, what God would attempt to do is provide the message in a way which would seem familiar to the people he was trying to reach.

I'm not challenging the Book of Mormon for using Elizabethan English. The issue here is not the style of the English in the BOM. The issue is its specific literary dependence on the KJV. Yes, God can speak any language he wants, but the issue here is what did Joseph Smith claim God was doing in the translation process. The evidence shows that Joseph claimed that God revealed the text of the BOM to him in a way that made the KJV extraneous.

I understand your point of how it appears that the "Elizabethan English" was not essential. What I am trying to do is the impossible task of putting myself in the shoes of the people in that day and age. So in my mind, the "Elizabethan English" was in deed essential for the people, because that was still the language of the day.

Do I believe that if God brought forth something like the Book of Mormon in our day and age would it be in any language different than what the translator speaks or the language of our day? Of course not. I can even picture someone two hundred years in the future debating the same thing regarding our translation of an ancient book which they are struggling to believe!

The BOM quotations from Isaiah have numerous insignificant variations from the KJV while retaining a large number of errors in the KJV. (We haven't gotten to those yet; they should probably be reserved for a new thread.)

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter...the errors in the King James Version which made their way into the Book of Mormon!

Could this have been "laziness" on the part of Joseph to copy from one text to the other? Was he taking short cuts? Were there times of sin on his part which kept him from "hearing or seeing" as intently as he should? All are possible. But if there are errors (which there appears to be that came over from the King James Version), was this God's fault or mans?

Remember, I am one who believes the book is what it purports to be and have had experiences that leave me no doubt. In essence, the errors in turn show how Joseph still retained his agency and propensity to sin which makes me all the more cognizant of my own faults. There is a profound lesson here in how God allows us so great ability to stray even when doing things of extreme importance.

Rob, instead of seeing these errors as things which prove the book wrong, this should stand as testament against mankind as a whole. Do we really think we could stay true when our inner souls invariably betray us before God and the work we have been entrusted?

We already have multiple testimonies to Jesus Christ that reveal who he is, what he did, and what it all means, in the NT. The BOM adds little to that testimony other than the claim that he preached to the Nephites and founded a church in the Americas that died out. In reality, at least as I see it, in both practical and doctrinal matters, the BOM functionally operates in LDS religion primarily as a testimony to Joseph Smith and the LDS restoration.

I often recite to people the passage in John (21:25) which says: "And I suppose that if all the other events in Jesus life were written, the whole would could hardly contain the books."

Now if this is true are we in essence telling the Lord, "I've heard enough and I don't want any more" if we do not hunger for more light and truth from an unending God? We may in fact have enough regarding "the historical Christ", but I do not believe we have the full picture in what he is attempting to accomplish.

I will admit to being a little charismatic here, but I long for prophecy and revelation. I pray daily to become a man after God's own heart so I may know his thoughts and desires. In our world, the Bible has proven not to be enough when most Christians are not that distinguishable from those of other religions. It is too bad that some see the Book of Mormon as a testimony of Joseph Smith or the LDS Church when for me it is and will always be testimony of Jesus Christ.

Your question assumes that the kinds of works Jesus said we would do are things like seeing the Three Nephites. I'm sorry, I don't agree.

How is this any different than witnessing an open heaven? Please do not equate the works Jesus did and called us to do as merely seeing Book of Mormon characters. But then how was my experience any different than Mary seeing Gabriel or what the apostles witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration? While the lesson of my encounter served as testimony of the Book of Mormon, it was secondary to the lesson which I did not reveal in my comments.

Then too, some of the miracles I have seem manifest are not recorded in the Bible. But this is not about "performing" miracles, rather becoming all we can be in Jesus Christ. Again, we must admit that the Bible has not proven to be enough for most Christians to become "Christ like". For me, the Book of Mormon has not replaced my Bible in any way, rather it has opened for me a deeper understanding in what it means to "go and do likewise."

I can love you, want the best for you, and seek to be at peace with you personally or relationally, and still seek to help you see that the religious beliefs you have embraced are not true. It would be unloving of me not to try.

Thank you for the sentiment! Actually, my best friend (college roommate and best man in my wedding) feels the same way as you. He feared for my immortal soul because I believed in the Book of Mormon. One day he called to apologize. Not for my beliefs, but for how he saw I was living my life in a more Christ like way than his own pastor.

This was such a revelation for him. It was no longer what we used to develop our beliefs but how we lived them out as what he learned as being of utmost importance. Sorry for the long response. If I have missed anything or if something is not clear, that is my fault and I ask your forgiveness, and your patience in allowing me opportunity to correct or further explain...

[urroner]

A stone in a hat is the process as witnessed by Emma and scribes. Too bad Monson and others are afraid to make this known to members or prospect members.

God has nothing to do with the BoM.

Dang Tango, with such a forceful, highly intellectual, and extremely spiritual defense of your position on the BofM, how can I disagree with you, but could you please put a little bit more flesh on your last statement about God having nothing to do with the BofM?

[zerinus]

The impression I get Rob is that you are not seriously interested in discussing these issues, but you just like having fun picking on the Mormons. That is okay with me. I have no problem with that. I don't think anybody minds you having a bit of fun at the expense of the Mormons. But it does get to be a bit boring after a while.

The Book of Mormon is true. It was translated by the gift and power of God. God was the real translator of it, not Joseph Smith; and it was God's decision to translate it the way it was done. I don't see a problem with that, and you have not given me a valid reason why I should have a problem with the way it has been done.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

The impression I get Rob is that you are not seriously interested in discussing these issues, but you just like having fun picking on the Mormons. That is okay with me. I have no problem with that. I don't think anybody minds you having a bit of fun at the expense of the Mormons. But it does get to be a bit boring after a while.

The Book of Mormon is true. It was translated by the gift and power of God. God was the real translator of it, not Joseph Smith; and it was God's decision to translate it the way it was done. I don't see a problem with that, and you have not given me a valid reason why I should have a problem with the way it has been done.

I can understand you choosing to disagree with my conclusions, but I cannot understand how you can claim that I am "not seriously interested in discussing these issues." I would really like to know what you think it would look like for a non-Mormon to discuss the issues seriously.

[Rob Bowman]

Thunderfire,

The fact that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment raises yet another difficulty in regard to the extensive quotations from Isaiah. Why, in an abridgment, would such lengthy quotations be included from a book already available in full on another set of plates?

If the KJV is as accurate as you suggest, then it is peculiar that the Isaiah quotations in the BOM include a number of trivial variations from the KJV wording. If God chose to use the KJV in his inspired revelations to Joseph of the quotations from Isaiah in the BOM, why bother with all those minor variations while ignoring most of the glaring textual and translation errors in the KJV?

You ask if people would have accepted the BOM if its quotations from Isaiah differed in wording from the KJV. I'm not sure which people you have in mind here. Most people do not accept the BOM, and one of the main reasons they cite for not accepting it is the evidence that the BOM copies whole chapters from the KJV! Besides, by your reasoning, the BOM quotations from Isaiah should not vary from the KJV at all, yet they do, though mostly in trivial ways.

You wrote:

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter...the errors in the King James Version which made their way into the Book of Mormon! Could this have been "laziness" on the part of Joseph to copy from one text to the other? Was he taking short cuts? Were there times of sin on his part which kept him from "hearing or seeing" as intently as he should? All are possible. But if there are errors (which there appears to be that came over from the King James Version), was this God's fault or mans?

I think you missed something crucial here. The usual LDS claim is that Joseph Smith cannot be responsible for the Isaiah chapters in the BOM because he reportedly did not have a Bible handy when he was dictating the BOM and supposedly could not have memorized those chapters. If the duplication in the BOM of errors in the KJV are Joseph's fault, then that LDS claim is false and Joseph did use the KJV after all.

[zerinus]

I can understand you choosing to disagree with my conclusions, but I cannot understand how you can claim that I am "not seriously interested in discussing these issues." I would really like to know what you think it would look like for a non-Mormon to discuss the issues seriously.

You don't have any "conclusions" that one can seriously agree or disagree with. If your conclusion is that the Isaiah passages in the BOM are based on the text of the KJV, I agree, and I don't think anybody disagrees. If your conclusion is that that proves that the BOM is not inspired or revealed, it does not logically follow, and it has been convincingly shown to you in many ways that it doesn't. You don't have any valid arguments to stand on.

[USU78]

The fact that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment raises yet another difficulty in regard to the extensive quotations from Isaiah. Why, in an abridgment, would such lengthy quotations be included from a book already available in full on another set of plates?

The answer to this question is found on the cover page. "Abridgement" only describes how Mormon got to "X." The cover page tells why and the structure of the BoM, including the lengthy Isaiah passages, serve the "why." Even the skipping of long periods and focusing on a relatively few time periods serve the "why."

Are you sure you actually read the BoM?

[Vance]

The answer to this question is found on the cover page. "Abridgement" only describes how Mormon got to "X." The cover page tells why and the structure of the BoM, including the lengthy Isaiah passages, serve the "why." Even the skipping of long periods and focusing on a relatively few time periods serve the "why."

Are you sure you actually read the BoM?

Apparently he thinks that he doesn't have to actually read it to know what's in it.

[Vance]

You don't have any "conclusions" that one can seriously agree or disagree with. If your conclusion is that the Isaiah passages in the BOM are based on the text of the KJV, I agree, and I don't think anybody disagrees. If your conclusion is that that proves that the BOM is not inspired or revealed, it does not logically follow, and it has been convincingly shown to you in many ways that it doesn't. You don't have any valid arguments to stand on.

Thank you for stating the OBVIOUS!!!!

Will someone PLEASE get Bowman a clue!!!

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

The answer to this question is found on the cover page. "Abridgement" only describes how Mormon got to "X." The cover page tells why and the structure of the BoM, including the lengthy Isaiah passages, serve the "why." Even the skipping of long periods and focusing on a relatively few time periods serve the "why."

Are you sure you actually read the BoM?

Yes. Are you sure you read the title page (I assume this is what you mean by "cover page")? I ask, because it gives no explanation for the inclusion of the lengthy Isaiah passages. In fact, it does not even mention them.

Most of the Isaiah chapters are in 1-2 Nephi, which are part of the "small plates of Nephi." According to 1 Nephi 1:17, Nephi abridged his father's record, which would not include the Isaiah chapters. 1 Nephi 19:3 appears to indicate that the chapters from Isaiah quoted toward the end of 1 Nephi and in much of 2 Nephi were not abridged by Nephi. This is likely a better response, from a Mormon perspective, to my question. Nevertheless, even this information does not explain why Nephi would need to re-copy more than 18 chapters of Isaiah on his "small plates" when they were already engraved on the plates of brass. Nor does it explain why Mormon would include three full chapters of Isaiah in his abridged account while at the same time apologizing for not being able to include more information (Words of Mormon 1:5).

[Magyar]

Thank you for stating the OBVIOUS!!!!

Will someone PLEASE get Bowman a clue!!!

A clue (klew) is a ball of string. People can hurt themselves playing with string.

[Mike Richards]

Hi Rob,

Thanks again for responding.

With regard to my statement about using other evidence, you said,

I'm not sure what evidence that is.

I was referring to the apparent difficulty in memorizing such large passages, the broader evidences in support of the BoM as an inspired/authentic/ancient text, and most importantly, the personal witness that many of those posting have had that the BoM is what it claims to be. But, as I said, if we just focus on this chapter, and exclude other evidence from the rest of the BoM (including any personal witnesses received), I can see how you would come to your conclusion, and I presume I would come to the same one.

Further, you said:

If they read my argument and do not try to rebut the argument, but simply say, "Well, I see your point, but based on my testimony I choose to take another view, though I have no superior evidence to present to you for it," that would fit what you say here. But the minute they try to show that my conclusion is unwarranted, they are entering into the arena of argument, reason, and evidence. They may not be trying to convince me, but they are trying to rebut my argument--and to do that they need to show that the evidence is better explained on their view than on mine.

I feel like I am essentially saying just that--I can see your point, and after excluding all the evidence that makes up my testimony, I agree with you. Let me bring up your OP conclusion: "The only reasonable conclusion is that Joseph Smith utilized the KJV in his rendering of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14." It seems to me that, if your conclusion is "the only reasonable..." one, you are essentially saying those of us who do not agree with you are unable or unwilling to reason. I disagree with this conclusion because it seems reasonable to me that God (or whomever God assigned to assist Joseph in the translation process) utilized the KJV.

If this were the case, what kind of evidence would you expect to find to support it? Why would expect to find that evidence?

You also said:

Modern revelation is not the issue here. I am not denying the possibility of modern revelation, nor is my objection in any way based on suspicion of modern revelation. I don't even personally maintain "the impossibility of modern-day revelation."

That's good to know. Thank you for sharing.

You continued with:

It is the ad hoc nature of the explanation that is the problem, not that it involves modern-day revelation. Mormons say God supernaturally enabled Joseph Smith to translate the gold plates. Okay; assuming that is possible for the sake of argument, let's look at the evidence and see if it fits that claim. That is my method.

For this, I have the same question: Sticking with the assumption, what would you expect to find as evidence? Why would you expect that?

The BOM quotes from Isaiah; we are told that Joseph Smith's translation was not copied from the KJV but was revealed to him line by line, more or less word for word; yet we can see as we examine the BOM that it is directly dependent on the KJV. The obvious, simplest, and most straightforward explanation is that Joseph Smith was quoting from the KJV, not translating an ancient Reformed Egyptian translation or quotation of Isaiah. The LDS explanation that God chose to use the KJV in his revelation to Joseph of the wording of the BOM quotations from Isaiah is ad hoc; that is, its only merit is that it saves the claim that Joseph supernaturally translated the BOM from the gold plates. (The expression ad hoc is a term used in logic to denote a claim for which no evidence exists other than its utility in salvaging a theory that appears to be in evidential trouble.)

I appreciate you explaining what ad hoc means and its relevance to this conversation. Again, in total evidentiary isolation, with the focus on Mosiah 14's relation to Isaiah 53, and the exclusion of any personal witness, I agree with you: the response that God chose to use the KJV in the translation is ad hoc. If Joseph Smith appeared on the scene with just Mosiah 14 in his hand and asked people to believe that God had helped him translate it from ancient plates, and didn't encourage people to ask God if his claim was true, it would be the logic conclusion that he had just copied the KJV. It still might not be the truth, but it would be the logical conclusion.

Think about it this way. Did Joseph Smith explain that God revealed the wording of the KJV to him through the stone in his hat? No. We have no testimonial evidence to support this interpretation of what happened. It is an after-the-fact rationalization of the evidence that Joseph was dependent on the KJV for his BOM quotations from Isaiah.

I honestly haven't looked specifically for any statements from Joseph Smith about the passages in the BoM that are similar to those in the KJV. I'm basing my belief, again, for this narrow scope of discussion, on the witnesses of and participants in the translating/recording process who claim that no material was present, and on the lack of evidence that Joseph was capable of memorizing so much--though, if we're just sticking to Mosiah 14, I guess what I said isn't true. I'm pretty sure he could have memorized Isaiah 53 without too much trouble.

I am a Christian who believes in a miracle-working God. That God can do miracles today. He can give new revelations today if he wants to do so. Numerous religions claim they are the recipient of such modern revelations. I have a responsibility to test these revelatory claims to see if they are really from God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). It is not worldview suspicion of the supernatural that drives my critique of LDS claims. You're free to disagree with my conclusions, of course, but I want you to understand that I am not doubting God's power or ability to do as he pleases.

I find this admirable, and I'll assume you are doing so in sincerity. I'd be interested in knowing what criteria you are using in determining if things are really from God. I'd also be interested to know if you applied these same criteria when evaluating those things that you currently believe are true.

[semlogo]

Does it disturb you when the New Testament quotes the Septuagint even when it disagrees with the Hebrew text (e.g. Isa. 7--there are many others)? Why would an inerrant Bible do that? Why didn't God inspire the NT writers to make more accurate translations from Hebrew?

Defenses like these, while well intentioned, really seem to be an argument for rejecting the Bible, not accepting the Book of Mormon.

[LeSellers]

The fact that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment raises yet another difficulty in regard to the extensive quotations from Isaiah. Why, in an abridgment, would such lengthy quotations be included from a book already available in full on another set of plates?

Nephi answered this question.

2 And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words. For I will liken his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him. 3 And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him; wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children to prove unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.

4 Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him.

...

8 And now I write some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men.

Since Mormon didn't abridge the Small Plates of Nephi, and most of what we have of Isaiah are from those plates, the abridgement arguments are essentially moot on the matter. So Nephi recorded Isaiah to prove to his people (and us, because he wrote explicitly for us) that there is a Christ and that Jesus is the Christ.

Lehi

[USU78]

Yes. Are you sure you read the title page (I assume this is what you mean by "cover page")? I ask, because it gives no explanation for the inclusion of the lengthy Isaiah passages. In fact, it does not even mention them.

Most of the Isaiah chapters are in 1-2 Nephi, which are part of the "small plates of Nephi." According to 1 Nephi 1:17, Nephi abridged his father's record, which would not include the Isaiah chapters. 1 Nephi 19:3 appears to indicate that the chapters from Isaiah quoted toward the end of 1 Nephi and in much of 2 Nephi were not abridged by Nephi. This is likely a better response, from a Mormon perspective, to my question. Nevertheless, even this information does not explain why Nephi would need to re-copy more than 18 chapters of Isaiah on his "small plates" when they were already engraved on the plates of brass. Nor does it explain why Mormon would include three full chapters of Isaiah in his abridged account while at the same time apologizing for not being able to include more information (Words of Mormon 1:5).

Here it is in a nutshell: "[T]to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Isaiah, to most Christians, is a prophetic text which, at its heart, has the same purpose.

I don't think you've ever read it, even though you did leap the pretty low hurdle I laid out for you.

[Kevin Christensen]

Defenses like these, while well intentioned, really seem to be an argument for rejecting the Bible, not accepting the Book of Mormon.

I disagree. It it merely an observation the argument that God would not inspire anyone (especially Joseph Smith) to use the most popular, recognizable, and influential translation in use, including its errors, is not based on the actual evidence and experience we have to draw upon when considering what God would or would not do. Rather, it is pure supposition, unsupported by precedent. Professor Hamblin, and Nibley and others have noted that there is both precedent and practical benefit for using KJV language (as the Septuagint quotations demonstrate), and no evidence that God works with and through human agents in any other way.

There are a number of very interesting variants in the Book of Mormon quotations, as John Tvedtnes (Isaiah) and John Welch (Sermon on the Mount compared to Sermon at the temple) show, and some intriguing context issues. For instance, "John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50:51, the Israelite Autumn Festivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6:10." He writes that "from the structure and themes of 2 Nephi 6:10, one may conclude that Jacob's speech was given in connection with a covenant-renewal celebration that was most likely performed as part of the traditional Israelite autumn festivals required by the law of Moses."" Focusing on the KJV language completely overlooks the insights provided by the Book of Mormon context. I think this is by design. Straining for gnats to avoid difficult to explain camels.

Welch's work on 3 Nephi explores in enlightening detail the significance of the temple context and significance of variations in 3 Nephi's use of the Sermon on the mount.

Of the context for the Isaiah 53 quote in Mosiah, a trio of researchers concluded, "no other day on the Israelite calendar fits the message, words, and experience of the Prophet Abinadi more precisely than does the ancient Israelite Festival of Pentecost." John W. Welch, Gordon C. Thomasson, and Robert F. Smith, "Abinadi and Pentecost," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 138. So there is a ritual context here as well.

In Professor Wright's essay in American Apocrypha, he chides Joseph Smith for not coming up with a fresh translation, basically saying, "If God was involved, he would have done it the way I think it should be done." A fresh translation might flatter Professor Wright, but would make it harder for common folk to recognize where and when the Bible was being quoted.

I think that Joseph Smith's comment in D&C 128:18 is relevant as well, as he discusses a KJV passage. "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."

If it suit's God's purposes (for which I consider Isaiah 55:9-11), that is enough.

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

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with consulting more accurate translations and seeing how they might work in the Book of Mormon context. For example, one of these days I may want to play with how Margaret Barker's interesting translation of Isaiah 53 (her own reading of the DSS Hebrew) might work in Abinadi's discourse.

I see God's word as working within his processes through time. And his word has been provided through imperfect people, which is no big deal.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Vance]

Focusing on the KJV language completely overlooks the insights provided by the Book of Mormon context. I think this is by design. Straining for gnats to avoid difficult to explain camels.

WOW!! Talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head.