Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[canard78]

I have long been interested by the presence of so much of the 17thC KJV of the Old and New Testament in the Bible. In addition to obvious Isaiah quotes we also have extensive verbatim quotes from the New Testament. I wrote a long post about the problems of Mormon 9 borrowing from Mark 16 given the latter is considered a 2ndC tag-on by a scribe: (you also have Nephi quoting Peter and the entire Sermon on the Mount, including identical 'narrators' words).

I was reading one of the sources from why me in the 'hidden history' thread and read this from an Ensign article:

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

Given how 'loose' the translation of the rest of the BoM seems to have been I would agree that the best explanation for large chunks of the KJV in the BoM is that they were read straight out of it during the translation/dictation process.

If this is what happened, I wonder if Oliver was aware of him doing this and Joseph explained that he was testing the wording by the spirit (as suggested above) or whether he did it out of sight/memorised in advance.

It also presents the issue of him first quoting from the KJV but later correcting it with the JST, but not updating the same wording in the BoM.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My opinion is this...if we believe it is the same God who inspired it. Why would he say it differently, Christ quoted, Isaiah. Proverbs, Psalms and other scripture. His first order of business was to correct errors in BoM writ. I wonder if people think he stole from his own words?

[Glenn101]

I have long been interested by the presence of so much of the 17thC KJV of the Old and New Testament in the Bible. In addition to obvious Isaiah quotes we also have extensive verbatim quotes from the New Testament. I wrote a long post about the problems of Mormon 9 borrowing from Mark 16 given the latter is considered a 2ndC tag-on by a scribe: http://www.mormondia...ark-16mormon-9/ (you also have Nephi quoting Peter and the entire Sermon on the Mount, including identical 'narrators' words).

I was reading one of the sources from why me in the 'hidden history' thread and read this from an Ensign article:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

Given how 'loose' the translation of the rest of the BoM seems to have been I would agree that the best explanation for large chunks of the KJV in the BoM is that they were read straight out of it during the translation/dictation process.

If this is what happened, I wonder if Oliver was aware of him doing this and Joseph explained that he was testing the wording by the spirit (as suggested above) or whether he did it out of sight/memorised in advance.

It also presents the issue of him first quoting from the KJV but later correcting it with the JST, but not updating the same wording in the BoM.

Have you done any in depth study of the translation process? There were many witnesses at various times and places and they all agree that Joseph had no bible or any other text with him during the translation process. Either Joseph had an almost photographic memory, or he was receiving the words from another source. Maybe Sidney Rigdon was hiding under the table and whispering all of that to Joseph,

Glenn

[canard78]

Have you done any in depth study of the translation process?

Yessir I have indeed. It's one of the topics I've studied the most. It has always been a puzzle how so much of the book manages to quote perfectly from the KJV when the other parts are 'in the weakness' of Joseph's own tongue/language (were a marching etc).

There were many witnesses at various times and places and they all agree that Joseph had no bible or any other text with him during the translation process. Either Joseph had an almost photographic memory, or he was receiving the words from another source. Maybe Sidney Rigdon was hiding under the table and whispering all of that to Joseph,

Glenn

I'm aware of the many witnesses who clearly state there was no bible present. So are you saying that the writer of the above article and the 'LDS scholars' he quotes have simply got it wrong?

How do you account for perfect quotation from KJV of the NT when the well-supported loose translation approach shows that the BoM cannot be called a 'God breathed' perfect transmission.

[ERayR]

Have you done any in depth study of the translation process? There were many witnesses at various times and places and they all agree that Joseph had no bible or any other text with him during the translation process. Either Joseph had an almost photographic memory, or he was receiving the words from another source. Maybe Sidney Rigdon was hiding under the table and whispering all of that to Joseph,

Glenn

He had the latest in wireless communications devices. He had an undetectable earpiece and somebody was reading to him and as it was a prototype and nobody else had it their communication was undetected. The reason it hasn't been found is that when he was done he sent it back to the future in his handy little Deloreon time machine. All so simple I'm surprised you missed it.

[canard78]

He had the latest in wireless communications devices. He had an undetectable earpiece and somebody was reading to him and as it was a prototype and nobody else had it their communication was undetected. The reason it hasn't been found is that when he was done he sent it back to the future in his handy little Deloreon time machine. All so simple I'm surprised you missed it.

I find it interesting that often on here when people can't give a reasonable answer to the issue they resort to humour as a deflection tactic.

All you're doing is illustrate the fact that there are only two reasonable explanations for the KJV NT being in there: a perfect dictation with God as author (that's undermined by the internal evidence in the 1830 edition/original manuscript) or (inspired) copying straight out of JS's KJV.

Beyond your earpiece/Rigdon jesting, do you have a reasonable answer to how Mark 16 (generally not considered the original words of Jesus by those who have studied it) found its way into Mormon 9? Or a perfect rendition of a 17thC poetic version of the Sermon on the mount (including the narrators voice)? Or Nephi(1) quoting verbatim a Peter in Acts paraphrasing Deuteronomy?

For clarity, I'm not throwing a fraud/plagiarism accusation out. I can still embrace the BoM as being of God and inspired even if its manner of creation points towards it being a mixture of sources being used to create it (ancient American/Hebrew, 17thC KJV, 19thC theology).

[omni]

It also presents the issue of him first quoting from the KJV but later correcting it with the JST, but not updating the same wording in the BoM.

I know you just kind of threw this on at the end, but IMO is a very significant issue with the translation and I would love to hear a good response for why this happened. Why are there verbatim sections of the Bible in the BoM that were later corrected in the JST? Shouldn't the BoM contain the correct version?

[canard78]

My opinion is this...if we believe it is the same God who inspired it. Why would he say it differently, Christ quoted, Isaiah. Proverbs, Psalms and other scripture. His first order of business was to correct errors in BoM writ. I wonder if people think he stole from his own words?

I agree that God inspired the Book of Mormon. That's not what I'm exploring. But it's also possible that Joseph was simply inspired at times to copy parts straight out of his Bible.

As I asked ERayR, how else do you explain the KJV being in there in such huge quantity if it's not for that?

[Glenn101]

Yessir I have indeed. It's one of the topics I've studied the most. It has always been a puzzle how so much of the book manages to quote perfectly from the KJV when the other parts are 'in the weakness' of Joseph's own tongue/language (were a marching etc).

I'm aware of the many witnesses who clearly state there was no bible present. So are you saying that the writer of the above article and the 'LDS scholars' he quotes have simply got it wrong?

How do you account for perfect quotation from KJV of the NT when the well-supported loose translation approach shows that the BoM cannot be called a 'God breathed' perfect transmission.

How do you account for the fact that some of the Isaiah chapters quoted are verbatim and others have some interesting variants? How do you account for the fact that the Book of Mormon is not written in KJ era English but the preceding century as per Royal Skousen?

The questions that you ask and the ones I have posed are just a few of the anomalies that we have in the Book of Mormon. But, if you accept the statements of the witnesses, the ones that were there, over the people who have been guessing so widely for so long (and who were not there), then the scholars got it wrong.

Glenn

[Nevo]

According to Royal Skousen, Joseph Smith was not responsible for the English text of the Book of Mormon. The English translation took place sometime prior to 1700 and was miraculously revealed to Joseph Smith in 1828-29. So we should probably be blaming this anonymous early modern translator for the copious KJV citations.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Nevo

[canard78]

I know you just kind of threw this on at the end, but IMO is a very significant issue with the translation and I would love to hear a good response for why this happened. Why are there verbatim sections of the Bible in the BoM that were later corrected in the JST? Shouldn't the BoM contain the correct version?

Indeed. I often wonder why the Article of faith doesn't read: We believe the Book of Mormon and the Bible as far as they are translated correctly.

If it needed changing in the Bible, why not also go back and change the BoM?

Even being the 'most correct' doesn't make it 'perfectly correct.' The statement 'most correct' only puts it at the top of the pile of at least partly incorrect books.

FWIW, in both cases we are talking about whether the translation is 'correct' which is very different in its linguistic roots to the translation being 'accurate.'

Perhaps one reason we don't go back and edit the KJV & BoM is the JST is a more doctrinally correct expression based on Joseph's understanding and not a more accurate translation of the original writing by the first author.

[Robert F. Smith]

He had the latest in wireless communications devices. He had an undetectable earpiece and somebody was reading to him and as it was a prototype and nobody else had it their communication was undetected. The reason it hasn't been found is that when he was done he sent it back to the future in his handy little Deloreon time machine. All so simple I'm surprised you missed it.

You're out in left field, ERay. Joseph had a solid state device (Royal Skousen calls it an "instrument") called a "seerstone," and based on witness descriptions, probably with an LED screen. He had to put his face in his hat to read it.

[canard78]

How do you account for the fact that some of the Isaiah chapters quoted are verbatim and others have some interesting variants? How do you account for the fact that the Book of Mormon is not written in KJ era English but the preceding century as per Royal Skousen?

The questions that you ask and the ones I have posed are just a few of the anomalies that we have in the Book of Mormon. But, if you accept the statements of the witnesses, the ones that were there, over the people who have been guessing so widely for so long (and who were not there), then the scholars got it wrong.

Glenn

You're answering a question with a question. They are all reasonable questions. But none of them answer how (for example) Mark 16 got into Moroni 9 perfectly. Both passages are apparent things said by Jesus as he left the disciples, but both added later (not by the contemporary writer). Is your conclusion that they are coincidence? Given lots of the other BoM was 'in the weakness' of Joseph's own ability to articulate the words, how did the KJV get in there perfectly?

[Tacenda]

I find it interesting that often on here when people can't give a reasonable answer to the issue they resort to humour as a deflection tactic.

All you're doing is illustrate the fact that there are only two reasonable explanations for the KJV NT being in there: a perfect dictation with God as author (that's undermined by the internal evidence in the 1830 edition/original manuscript) or (inspired) copying straight out of JS's KJV.

Beyond your earpiece/Rigdon jesting, do you have a reasonable answer to how Mark 16 (generally not considered the original words of Jesus by those who have studied it) found its way into Mormon 9? Or a perfect rendition of a 17thC poetic version of the Sermon on the mount (including the narrators voice)? Or Nephi(1) quoting verbatim a Peter in Acts paraphrasing Deuteronomy?

For clarity, I'm not throwing a fraud/plagiarism accusation out. I can still embrace the BoM as being of God and inspired even if its manner of creation points towards it being a mixture of sources being used to create it (ancient American/Hebrew, 17thC KJV, 19thC theology).

Just what I wanted to say, but better. I noticed the exact same thing when reading Ray & Glenn's posts. But understand where it's coming from, their reactions would have been mine not so long ago.

[canard78]

According to Royal Skousen, Joseph Smith was not responsible for the English text of the Book of Mormon. The English translation took place sometime prior to 1700 and was miraculously revealed to Joseph Smith in 1828-29. So we should probably be blaming this anonymous early modern translator for the copious KJV citations.

I'm left scratching my head at that one. Thanks for sharing it.

"The original vocabulary of the Book of Mormon appears to derive from the 1500s and 1600s, not from the 1800s."

Given "The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611" it's really not that surprising that the BoM does too given it so heavily draws on it's text.

If Joseph was translating in the weakness of his own language then that could easily include the type of language and turn of phrase that he was used to reading in the bible and hearing from the pulpit.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[canard78]

You're out in left field, ERay. Joseph had a solid state device (Royal Skousen calls it an "instrument") called a "seerstone," and based on witness descriptions, probably with an LED screen. He had to put his face in his hat to read it.

If I read past the humour do I take it that you believe Joseph was really reading off the stone? You view it as a perfect transmission/dictation of magical words appearing before his eyes?

The article listed above goes some way to discredit this idea. I think they point out that it mainly Whitmer who promoted this idea which was likely borne out of his personal view of how revelation is received.

Given Joseph never said this was the way it happened, how could Whitmer see the words given Joseph's head (in the hat) would be obscuring them.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have long been interested by the presence of so much of the 17thC KJV of the Old and New Testament in the Bible. In addition to obvious Isaiah quotes we also have extensive verbatim quotes from the New Testament. I wrote a long post about the problems of Mormon 9 borrowing from Mark 16 given the latter is considered a 2ndC tag-on by a scribe: http://www.mormondia...ark-16mormon-9/ (you also have Nephi quoting Peter and the entire Sermon on the Mount, including identical 'narrators' words).

I was reading one of the sources from why me in the 'hidden history' thread and read this from an Ensign article:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

Given how 'loose' the translation of the rest of the BoM seems to have been I would agree that the best explanation for large chunks of the KJV in the BoM is that they were read straight out of it during the translation/dictation process.

If this is what happened, I wonder if Oliver was aware of him doing this and Joseph explained that he was testing the wording by the spirit (as suggested above) or whether he did it out of sight/memorised in advance.

It also presents the issue of him first quoting from the KJV but later correcting it with the JST, but not updating the same wording in the BoM.

Such scholars as B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, and Daniel H. Ludlow have all maintained that Joseph Smith referred to a copy of the King James Version of the Bible when he came to extensive quotations while translating the Book of Mormon. That observation has been around for a long time and presents no problem. He translated in full view of others at the table and in the room.

The so-called "JST," which the RLDS have long been publishing as both an "Inspired Version," or an "Inspired Revision," was not published by Joseph, is not canonical, and appears to be a sincere effort by Joseph & Sidney Rigdon to clarify certain selected parts of the Bible (except for some extraordinary revelatory material, such as the Book of Moses). A good many people in that era tried to revise the Bible, including Alexander Campbell and Thomas Jefferson.

As to editing the BofM to match the JST, the idea that all Scripture (or quasi-scripture) should be homogenized to read the same way would mean that the 4 Gospels should be redacted and harmonized into one single Gospel, that Kings & Chronicles should be combined, that Deuteronomy and Exodus should be combined into a single account, or that duplicate stories in the Bible should all be converted into one story. This ignores the fact that different editors and storytellers used different sources. The ancient Near East abounded with the same stories told in quite divergent ways, whether we consider Creation, Flood, or Dying & Rising Gods. We need to honor and cherish the point of view of each narrator.

Having said all that, it is also important to distinguish direct quotation from (1) allusion, (2) intertextuality, in which the Bible alludes to and quotes itself quite often, or even simply (3) the general use of scriptural idiom. As to that last category, J. K. Elliott has stated in his Preface to his translation of the New Testament Apocrypha,

Allusions to a Biblical text are not noted: the nature of many of these apocryphal documents is such that their authors were so steeped in Biblical or liturgical language that many echoes of scriptural passages occur throughout the writings without being conscious quotations.

This is particularly the case for people in Joseph's day. They really knew the biblical text.

Intertextuality is dealt with by James Sanders, “Biblical Intertextuality: The Bible is Full of Itself,” Biblical Archaeology Society Lecture Video VHB16 (and BAS item 9HB16 on DVD); James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986), passim, but esp. pp. 128-133; Adrian Thatcher, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008).

[Robert F. Smith]

You're answering a question with a question. They are all reasonable questions. But none of them answer how (for example) Mark 16 got into Moroni 9 perfectly. Both passages are apparent things said by Jesus as he left the disciples, but both added later (not by the contemporary writer). Is your conclusion that they are coincidence? Given lots of the other BoM was 'in the weakness' of Joseph's own ability to articulate the words, how did the KJV get in there perfectly?

I note that you have a great liking for the word "perfectly." Do you mean by that usage to indicate pretty close, or nearly the same?

[J Green]

If I read past the humour do I take it that you believe Joseph was really reading off the stone? You view it as a perfect transmission/dictation of magical words appearing before his eyes?

The article listed above goes some way to discredit this idea. I think they point out that it mainly Whitmer who promoted this idea which was likely borne out of his personal view of how revelation is received.

Given Joseph never said this was the way it happened, how could Whitmer see the words given Joseph's head (in the hat) would be obscuring them.

I favor the accounts that have Joseph seeing some kind of text in the seer stone. One reason is that it still gives him a direct connection to the characters on the plate. When Joseph starts tinkering with the translation he copies characters from the plates and uses the interpreters over these copied characters. He copies other characters for distribution to the learned that his mother implies Joseph is hoping to use as a basis for translating the rest of the plates. There always appears to be a connection to the characters themselves. And the accounts that have Joseph seeing text in the stone also say that he is seeing the characters from the plate, which continues the connection. And this accounts for the culture of the seer stone. According to the few accounts we have, Joseph used it to see lost objects. If so, he would likely feel comfortable "seeing" the characters on the plate through the seer stone.

[Robert F. Smith]

If I read past the humour do I take it that you believe Joseph was really reading off the stone? You view it as a perfect transmission/dictation of magical words appearing before his eyes?

You may believe in magic, but I don't.

I suppose (based on modern technology) that Joseph's stone functioned as a virtual state transducer with an LED screen. I am further supposing that, just as we manipulate material nowadays to make very similar devices, God used available material to make just such a device. Moreover, I suppose that it functioned along with some sort of wifi feedback loop through Joseph's mind allowing him to take the ideas expressed on the plates and convert them into his own understanding and language -- which then appeared on the screen. Think of it as an advanced "translation app," if you will. Joseph is unlikely to have been aware of the subtleties of such functions..

The article listed above goes some way to discredit this idea. I think they point out that it mainly Whitmer who promoted this idea which was likely borne out of his personal view of how revelation is received.

Scholars are free to suppose whatever they wish about how the translation was done, and Richard Anderson's 1977 article did not take into account information which has since become available, and which I discuss in my own "Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” 28pp. (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages

Given Joseph never said this was the way it happened, how could Whitmer see the words given Joseph's head (in the hat) would be obscuring them.

You are supposing that only his public comments are to be taken as evidence. Those close to him had some very interesting views on how that translation took place, and I think that Joseph told some of them the outward mechanics of the process. I don't think that they experienced it personally.

[J Green]

Bob gives a likely account of how the kJV was likely physically present during the translation. If this wasn't the case, one other option would be that Joseph is choosing to see the text of these KJV passages himself, just as he could choose to see a lost object in a seer stone. If we are to believe that he did see both the original characters and an English text using the hat/stone method, then he likely could see almost any text he wanted to using the stone. If he wasn't holding the stone directly over the plates like he did with the interpreters over copied characters, then he was accessing the characters from the plates remotely just as he saw lost objects remotely. If he could do that, it's not a stretch to assume he could recognize biblical passages and choose to see the KJV version text as well.

[canard78]

I note that you have a great liking for the word "perfectly." Do you mean by that usage to indicate pretty close, or nearly the same?

Fair point. What I meant was that often the KJV and the BoM texts are 100% identical or an exact match.

Other times they are almost identical and only change a couple of words which are needed if the context/audience or tense is different.

Finally, there are also occasional where they start out identical and then go off differently (often repeating or further exploring ideas within the original identical quotation), almost as if Mormon/Joseph (or God) is taking a direct quote from the KJV and then adding to it and further developing the principle within the original citation. As a companion or second witness to the words of Christ in the bible it's a nice approach (even of it's Joseph's exploration that he first studies out in his mind and gets a spiritual confirmation of to then dictate it). I'd be ok if some of these apparent explorations are the inspired additions from Joseph having quoted the KJV while dictating and things that Mormon had never etched onto the plates in the first place.

I'm on my phone so will cite an example later.

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob gives a likely account of how the kJV was likely physically present during the translation. If this wasn't the case, one other option would be that Joseph is choosing to see the text of these KJV passages himself, just as he could choose to see a lost object in a seer stone. If we are to believe that he did see both the original characters and an English text using the hat/stone method, then he likely could see almost any text he wanted to using the stone. If he wasn't holding the stone directly over the plates like he did with the interpreters over copied characters, then he was accessing the characters from the plates remotely just as he saw lost objects remotely. If he could do that, it's not a stretch to assume he could recognize biblical passages and choose to see the KJV version text as well.

Lovely alternative. I sit here wondering, "Why didn't I think of that?" I gave you a well-deserved rep point.

[Robert F. Smith]

Fair point. What I meant was that often the KJV and the BoM texts are 100% identical or an exact match.

Other times they are almost identical and only change a couple of words which are needed if the context/audience or tense is different.

Finally, there are also occasional where they start out identical and then go off differently (often repeating or further exploring ideas within the original identical quotation), almost as if Mormon/Joseph (or God) is taking a direct quote from the KJV and then adding to it and further developing the principle within the original citation. As a companion or second witness to the words of Christ in the bible it's a nice approach (even of it's Joseph's exploration that he first studies out in his mind and gets a spiritual confirmation of to then dictate it). I'd be ok if some of these apparent explorations are the inspired additions from Joseph having quoted the KJV while dictating and things that Mormon had never etched onto the plates in the first place.

.......................................

Brilliant.

[omni]

Such scholars as B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, and Daniel H. Ludlow have all maintained that Joseph Smith referred to a copy of the King James Version of the Bible when he came to extensive quotations while translating the Book of Mormon. That observation has been around for a long time and presents no problem. He translated in full view of others at the table and in the room.

Well I guess there's your answer to JS needing a photographic memory or some kind of wireless devise in order to quote the Bible nearly verbatim.