The Book Of Mormon And The King James Bible

[Tacenda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible

Is it fair to say that Joseph Smith took passages from the KJV bible and used them in the BOM, along with revelation to help with the translation process of the BOM?

[CV75]

Is it fair to say that Joseph Smith took passages from the KJV bible and used them in the BOM, along with revelation to help with the translation process of the BOM?

No, because this would suggest that taking passages was not done by revelation and in lieu of revelation.

[Freedom]

It is not know, but all indications are that he had no reference material while translated so if this is the case, he would have had the bible memorized.

[Jaybear]

The BOM purports to be an 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript.

The BOM contains KJV translation errors that were made in the 16th century.

Ergo, the BOM is not what it purports to be.

[Palerider]

The BOM purports to be an 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript.

The BOM contains KJV translation errors that were made in the 16th century.

Ergo, the BOM is not what it purports to be.

Well put. Succinct, logical. I'm sure there's someone around here who can take us down into the weeds on this, unfortunately.

[mrmandias]

Weeds? The apologetic response on this is so obvious that I thought of it myself when I was a teenager and hadn't even been exposed to apologetics. Tacenda is groping at it too.

Its not like the similarities between the Isaiah chapters, etc., in the Book of Mormon and the KJV versions of the same are difficult to discover.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible

Is it fair to say that Joseph Smith took passages from the KJV bible and used them in the BOM, along with revelation to help with the translation process of the BOM?

How so? I am serious. Same God same words.

[Buzzard]

Since he was familiar with the KJV, it makes sense that he would have used it's language when quoting passages from the Brass Plates and during Christ's visit. What is inexplicable, unless you accept that JS told the truth is the changes, both subtle and substantive, to about half the verses quoted. If he was copying, why not just copy the passages without changes? The fact that many of these changes have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls Isiah scroll and the Pentauch (sp?) version of the OT is further evidence that JS was translating what was in front of him on the plates, not copying from his Bible.

I frankly am of the opinion that he probably had a bible close at hand to assist him in getting through the quasi-biblical passages. If I was translating a book from one language into another and had such a guide handy, I know I would use it.

[Ron Beron]

Jesus also quoted from the OT and quoted them with the errors. Big whoop. It means he had read the OT texts.

[Jaybear]

Since he was familiar with the KJV, it makes sense that he would have used it's language when quoting passages from the Brass Plates and during Christ's visit. What is inexplicable, unless you accept that JS told the truth is the changes, both subtle and substantive, to about half the verses quoted. If he was copying, why not just copy the passages without changes? The fact that many of these changes have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls Isiah scroll and the Pentauch (sp?) version of the OT is further evidence that JS was translating what was in front of him on the plates, not copying from his Bible.

I frankly am of the opinion that he probably had a bible close at hand to assist him in getting through the quasi-biblical passages. If I was translating a book from one language into another and had such a guide handy, I know I would use it.

While that may or may not be true, please show me where either Smith or the LDS Church acknowledges that Smith lifted language from the KJV bible when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

As soon as the LDS Church acknowleges that the BoM is something other than an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript, then I can no longer say that its not what it purports it to be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Since he was familiar with the KJV, it makes sense that he would have used it's language when quoting passages from the Brass Plates and during Christ's visit. What is inexplicable, unless you accept that JS told the truth is the changes, both subtle and substantive, to about half the verses quoted. If he was copying, why not just copy the passages without changes? The fact that many of these changes have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls Isiah scroll and the Pentauch (sp?) version of the OT is further evidence that JS was translating what was in front of him on the plates, not copying from his Bible.

I frankly am of the opinion that he probably had a bible close at hand to assist him in getting through the quasi-biblical passages. If I was translating a book from one language into another and had such a guide handy, I know I would use it.

Having grown up with only the KJV...every poem I write uses it's language.

[Jaybear]

Weeds? The apologetic response on this is so obvious that I thought of it myself when I was a teenager and hadn't even been exposed to apologetics. Tacenda is groping at it too.

Its not like the similarities between the Isaiah chapters, etc., in the Book of Mormon and the KJV versions of the same are difficult to discover.

In other words, it should be obvious to any teenager that Smith lifted language from KJV bible when he wrote the BoM, despite claiming that the BOM was an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript. On that we can agree.

[Buzzard]

While that may or may not be true, please show me where either Smith or the LDS Church acknowledges that Smith lifted language from the KJV bible when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

As soon as the LDS Church acknowleges that the BoM is something other than an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript, then I can no longer say that its not what it purports it to be.

You and other critics have both taken a mistaken stand and demanded an impossible standard. Any thinking person who looks at how the book was translated, taking a long time to translate in the beginning, then speeding up considerably as JS learned to read and understand Reformed Egyptian would understand that when Nephi announces that he is now going to quote Isiah, it makes perfect sense for JS to reach for a nearby Bible to help him through the Iisah passages. When the KJV words agreed with his translation, he used them. When they did not, he rendered the passage as he read it from the plates. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Oh, that's right. The whole face in the hat thing. Well, as near as I can tell, most of those who talk about that witnessed it at or near the early part of the translation, when JS was still learning how to read the language on the plates. The speed at which he translated the plates after Oliver became his scribe betrays that looking in a hat, seeing the words. and repeating them would not have allowed the BOM to be produced in that amount of time. Problem solved, at least for me. I suspect YMMV.

[CV75]

Weeds? The apologetic response on this is so obvious that I thought of it myself when I was a teenager and hadn't even been exposed to apologetics. Tacenda is groping at it too.

Its not like the similarities between the Isaiah chapters, etc., in the Book of Mormon and the KJV versions of the same are difficult to discover.

Having read the Bible cover-to-cover years prior to coming across the Book of Mormon as a 13-year old non-member, I recognized the similarities (plus the chapter headings point them out!), but due to extenuating circumstances I understood the Book of Mormon to be exactly what the LDS Church (and the book itself) says it is, especially after specifically praying about its truthfulness.

[Darren10]

http://en.wikipedia....ing_James_Bible

Is it fair to say that Joseph Smith took passages from the KJV bible and used them in the BOM, along with revelation to help with the translation process of the BOM?

I think he took passages which are comparable to passages of the Bible but as pointed out by freedom in #3, there is no indication that Joseph Smith had nd reference materials in front of him as he translated the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith did the translation using words and phrases common to him at his time and in a religious context there was no greater contributor to the evolution of religious vocabulary and phraseologies of the English speaking world

than the King James Version of the Bible. Therefore many of the common errors found in that translation was made into the Book of Mormon as well. One example is the inclusion of "Lucifer". Lucifer is originally a minor god in Roman mythology but by Joseph Smith's time Lucifer most definitely refered to Satan. Long before the KJV was ever produced, Lucifer became a mainstream word for Satan in early christianity bt it was the KJV which brouught this word to English speakers.

Your original question, Tacenda, reminds me of an apologetic rebuttal by Jeff Lindsay regarding the accusation that Joseph Smith simple copied the Bible into the Book of Mormon, including the errors.

More recently, I have encountered allegations that Joseph Smith just slavishly copied from the King James Bible, italicized words and all. The steady borrowing of italicized words from the King James text is thus said to prove the fraud of Joseph's "translation." The problem with this argument, like so many waged against the Book of Mormon and the Church itself, is that it falls apart under closer scrutiny. It's easy to cry out against the effrontery of Joseph Smith's use of italicized words - but have our critics carefully studied the text? I don't think so. Consider, for example, Isaiah 2 and 3 and their corresponding quotations in the Book of Mormon. In the table below, the KJV verses are on the left, with Book of Mormon verses on the right. KJV verses with italicized words are given an enlarged verse number in a different font. If one or more of the italicized passages in the KJV verse has been changed in the corresponding Book of Mormon verse, then the verse number is in red; otherwise, it is black. As you will see, most of the verses with italics in the Bible are numbered in read because the Book of Mormon versions show subtle changes.

Follow the link below and you'll see a chart giving the variations between Isaiah of the KJV and the when Isaiaih is cited in the Book of Mormon.

What about the use of italacized words in the King James Bible?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

In other words, it should be obvious to any teenager that Smith lifted language from KJV bible when he wrote the BoM, despite claiming that the BOM was an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript. On that we can agree.

i think what mrmandias was getting at is that it is obvious that Joseph Smith included biblical passages in the Book of Mormon. This only requires a reading ofthe Book of mormon itself and nowadays, simple looking at the highlights before each chapter. It'll say "compare to Isaiah..."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne?lang=eng

Just look at Chapter 20 for an example.

[Darren10]

Having read the Bible cover-to-cover years prior to coming across the Book of Mormon as a 13-year old non-member, I recognized the similarities (plus the chapter headings point them out!), but due to extenuating circumstances I understood the Book of Mormon to be exactly what the LDS Church (and the book itself) says it is, especially after specifically praying about its truthfulness.

Very nice.

[Darren10]

While that may or may not be true, please show me where either Smith or the LDS Church acknowledges that Smith lifted language from the KJV bible when he "translated" the Book of Mormon.

As soon as the LDS Church acknowleges that the BoM is something other than an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript, then I can no longer say that its not what it purports it to be.

Why would Smith or the LDS Church have to admit any such thing if Smith had original sources by which he translated what is today biblical passages?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Darren10

[Lachoneus]

One of the more remarkable linguistic evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a translation from an ancient text lies in the Isaiah variants found in it. The examples given here, though sketchy, are presented to offer some of that evidence to all those who seriously inquire after the origins of the Book of Mormon.

"Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon" by John A. Tvedtnes

[Darren10]

Lachoneus;

I'm very glad you added that link. It points to something I read from Jeff Lindsay who I recall saying something about how the Book of Mormon mentions sailing from an area which is not in the KJV but is found in other sources outside the KJV. Being vague on details I chose to completely leave this out of my #15 post. Yur link is what Lindsay must have cited (and accredited):

Isaiah 2:16 compared with 2 Nephi 12:16:

KJV: "And upon all the ships of Tarshish"

BM: "And upon all the ships of the sea,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish"

Here, BM adds a line not found in KJV. Interestingly, LXX reads "And upon every ship of the sea, and upon all views of pleasant ships," with the last part paralleling KJV/BM "and upon all pleasant pictures." The Greek talassa, "sea," resembles the word Tarshish. But both the Targum and the Vulgate have "sea" with LXX instead of Tarshish. The matter is a very complex one, for which a complete discussion cannot be included here. BM appears to have included the versions of both MT and LXX/T/V. MT could have dropped the nearly identical second line by haplography.

(MT means "Masoretic Text" which is what the KJV relied upon to translate the old Testament)

Either Joseph Smith made a lucky guess and included an addition in the Book of Mormon not found in the KJV of the Bible which inclusion is a perfectly legitimate inclusion on Joseph Smith's part as it is confirmable from sources outside the KJV or he simply had an original source by whic he translated from.

UPDATE: here is the original Isaiah 2:16 in full. I included this for clarity of Tvedtnes' argument:

And upon all the ^aships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

http://www.lds.org/s.../isa/2?lang=eng

Edited July 17, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Non sequitur.

No one denies that JS was familiar with the KJV. It is totally appropriate/required for a translator to use words, and phrases, he is familiar with in translating.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The BOM purports to be an 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript.

The BOM contains KJV translation errors that were made in the 16th century.

Ergo, the BOM is not what it purports to be.

I have a copy of a translation of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls published in the early 90s on CD Rom.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Revealed/dp/B0012E7PYM

It used in the biblical texts, two translations (except where unique material was preserved). The vast majority of the text in the translation followed the KJV verbatim, more than 90 percent of the time. Except for the unique readings, the rest of the translation came from the ASV.

So, this collection of texts claimed to be a translation of an ancient manuscript, and in fact was a translation of an ancient manuscript, even though it included errors from a 19th century text.

Ergo, it must not be what it claimed to be, right?

By the way, Jaybear, exactly what does the Book of Mormon purport to be?

With regards to the OP, I think that the only thing we can say with some degree of certainty is that the Book of Mormon language in places is dependent on the language of the King James Version. We can speculate as to what that means, or why it might be the case, and that will produce a whole range of answers that largely depend on your position on what the book is, on your views on what sort of translation occurred (assuming there was a translation), who the intended audience was, and so on.

Ben M.

[Zakuska]

Well put. Succinct, logical. I'm sure there's someone around here who can take us down into the weeds on this, unfortunately.

So lets see... what of the "translation errors" which are coberated by ancient sources?

Ah yes... Joseph Smith was a lucky con-man.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Zakuska

[Whiskeypete]

No, because this would suggest that taking passages was not done by revelation and in lieu of revelation.

Unless Joseph was told to do so by way of revelation and commandment.

[guerreiro9]

Hello Buzzard,

In response to your post

Any thinking person who looks at how the book was translated, taking a long time to translate in the beginning, then speeding up considerably as JS learned to read and understand Reformed Egyptian would understand that when Nephi announces that he is now going to quote Isiah, it makes perfect sense for JS to reach for a nearby Bible to help him through the Iisah passages. When the KJV words agreed with his translation, he used them. When they did not, he rendered the passage as he read it from the plates. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Oh, that's right. The whole face in the hat thing. Well, as near as I can tell, most of those who talk about that witnessed it at or near the early part of the translation, when JS was still learning how to read the language on the plates. The speed at which he translated the plates after Oliver became his scribe betrays that looking in a hat, seeing the words. and repeating them would not have allowed the BOM to be produced in that amount of time. Problem solved, at least for me. I suspect YMMV.

I recently finished the book Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism by Richard L. Bushman. He describes the difficulties that Joseph had in translating at first (he didn't know how to do it), and that several different methods were used in the translation. The translation method evolved over time and the speed at which he translated increased as you suggested. The vast majority of the quotations from Isaiah are found in the book of 2nd Nephi, which was one of the very last things translated by Joseph Smith. According to Bushman, Joseph translated the 116 lost pages comprising the book of Lehi, and when he resumed the translation after regaining the plates he continued where he left off which would have been the book of Mosiah as we currently have at. Only after completing the remainder of the translation of Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi did he begin the translation of the small plates of Nephi on which the Isaiah quotations are found.

My point is if Bushman's chronology is true (I haven't checked his references) then by the time the Isaiah quotations were translated Joseph had been translating continuously for months and had already translated nearly the entire record. We have very little if any information about how the translation occurred during its latter stages, Joseph Smith could have been standing on his head at this point for all we know.

I am not suggesting that Joseph Smith directly used a KJV Bible to aid his translation, but I am suggesting that the Isaiah quotes came during a part of the translation that we know very little to nothing about. Most of the information about the translation is concentrated during the very beginning.