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

[cdowis]

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.

Wonder no more. The answer is quite straightforward.

1. We know that there are missing texts from the OT which are quoted in the NT, including Jude and the "Nazarene" citation, as well as in the BOM.

2. We know that Paul quoted other authors including extra-Biblical sources.

The obvious answer is that the BOM is not quoting Paul, but they are both quoting sources that are no longer extant in the OT.

Edited May 28, 2013 by cdowis

[rongo]

[bumping post #31 up, which had no response amidst the flurry of responses last night. I think the fact that there are other instances of photographic memory other than KJV passages is significant, and not addressed by critics or those with ostensible concerns about KJV passages] . . . What if his "photographic" memory while translating was part and parcel of the whole "by the gift and power of God" thing? That's where I see the evidence taking me. Too many witnesses emphasize that Joseph had no books or papers with him when he translated, that he picked up right where they left off without reminders, etc. I think that, given what happened to him (real angelic ministrations, etc.), he was motivated to read the Bible (remember ---- he was the least inclined to read at all, per his mother), and the Spirit brought "all thing to his remembrance" when needed (cf. John 14:26). The version of the Bible he read was the KJV, and where it served well in the translation, he had perfect recall of the verbiage through the Spirit. As has been said (and as is noted in a footnote in the BoM), more than half of the Isaiah verses in the BoM have significant differences from their KJV counterparts. We also need to remember that this phenomenon is not just an Isaiah issue: there are multiple other instances where this "total recall" kicks in. For example, the

saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

of 1 Nephi 1:8 finds itself verbatim in Alma 26:22

saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and ^bpraising their God

.

The witnesses are explicit that there were no papers, books, etc. or any giving of the thread or where they left off. How to explain that, then? I think it's clear that Joseph Smith was able to perform Spirit-influenced magnificent feats of memory, including recalling exact wording for long passages from the KJV Bible, where appropriate (as dictated by the Spirit).

[J Green]

So if Joseph is actually reading off a stone (and not studying it out/feeling it's right), where do the errors in the original come from? Errors from Joseph in reading the words out or errors from the scribe in hearing and transcribing the words?

The short answer is that I don't think Joseph was simply reading off the stone without participating in the translation process. This is Royal Skousen's theory, which I disagree with fairly strongly. I think that the indicators are overwhelming that Joseph was involved in choosing the words to use in the translation, although there were likely ways he could access things visually. But yes, I think that Joseph himself could make mistakes in the translation. Also, as Bob explains very nicely, scribes could make errors in assumption that are still reflected in the text today.

[MormonMason]

So he had a KJV in 1820 (his parents?). Are you saying the whitmers (where he was translating) had no bible either?

Yes, he had one in 1820, which belonged to his parents. When he left home he did not take it with him. If the Whitmers had one at the time why did he have to get one from a neighbor down the road to settle a dispute? It is likely that the Whitmers did not have one at the time. Believe it or not, many families did not have a Bible in the home in those days. When you consider the average wages of the day (approximately $8.50 to $9.30 a month, including board, in farm-related labor during the period, see page 462 of http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf for an example of the kinds of wages paid) and the costs of books in those days, it left a lot of people unable to afford the luxury of a Bible for long periods of time.

It was not like today where most Christian families have at least a paperback, gift-copy, or otherwise of the Bible due to much lower costs of production than the hand-printing methods of the period made available. A lot of people forget about things like that and take Bibles for granted these days.

It is known that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery went in together and pooled their money to buy a Bible on October 8, 1829. The date is so recorded on the flyleaf. It is highly unlikely they would have purchased a Bible if either of them had already had one. There would have been no need to purchase a Bible if they both had had one. That same Bible, of course, would later be used in the work of the Joseph Smith Translation (which began in 1830).

Edited May 28, 2013 by MormonMason

[J Green]

That's all well and good. But why would God/the stone have him quote Mark 16 in Mormon 9 (see OP for link to lots more details on this). Something that's fairly well established to be unoriginal and not something Jesus ever actually said. Why have Mormon/Joseph repeat verbatim something that Christ is supposed to have said that wasn't actually?

I sometimes think it's ironic that we go out of our way to point out the bible's weaknesses or issues to build the need for the BoM and yet a section that most non-LDS Bible scholars (and one or two LDS ones) agree is unoriginal is instead defended by some apologists because if its unoriginal then having Joseph include it puts us on dodgy ground.

For me Mark 16/Mormon 9 remains a smoking gun that I choose to ignore most of the time. I couldn't find anything about it on FAIR.

Let's look at our assumption that when Joseph recognizes a biblical passage he switches to the KJV text (either with a bible on hand or visualizing these passages through the stone or eidetic memory). Are we assuming that there is or isn't an exact match to that passage on the plates? Why or why not? For example, if there really are passages from Isaiah (including Duetero- and Trito-Isaiah) on the plates, there would very likely have to have been greater variants in the original text than show up in essentially the KJV Isaiah passages in translation with only a few minor adjustments. Which of the following do we assume?

1. Textual variants existed, but Joseph simply used the KJV text without knowing that these variants existed on the plates.

2. Textual variants existed, and Joseph knew they existed but chose to use the KJV text as the translation anyway.

3. In some cases 1, but in other cases 2.

So the first question I would ask you is this: despite the translation as given that shows an obvious dependency on the KJV, are we assuming that the passage in Mormon (the one on the plates, not the translation we have) is exactly the same as the biblical passage? Why or why not?

Then I would have questions regarding our assumptions about NT textual criticism. Generally, the earlier documents are privileged over the later families of fragments. This means that the Adulteress in John, for example, is seen also as a later insertion. Assuming we agree with this methodology, do we assume therefore that the material added later is simply false? Or could the later scribe have had access to earlier documents still and was simply re-introducing material that was removed? Or was he simply inspired to add something that wasn't there originally? For example, if you're following the Joseph Smith Papers project at all, you can see the sometimes significant changes Joseph made to his own revelations as he prepared to publish them for church consumption. Was he inspired to make the changes (I believe he was) or do we assume that the insertions and subtractions he made are invalid? When we look at biblical textual criticism, are we asking the same kinds of questions?

So the questions I have regarding the passage in Mark specifically are these: Is the addition inspired or not? Did it restore material that had been there in previous documents? Was it quoting an earlier source we don't have access to (as Cdowis mentions)? Given all this, I think we would need to know a little more about the textual picture on both the plates and in Mark before we start jumping to conclusions or calling something the smoking gun.

Cheers

Edited May 28, 2013 by J Green

[ERayR]

Thanks. Obviously, nonsense goes ahead of scholarship.

Nonsense begets nonsense.

Edited May 28, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

Regarding the KJV theories, one additional problem.

Skousen points out that JS used words that were already obsolete prior to the KJV version and not found there. This would would indicate that the BOM was independent of this text. These words were replaced in the later editions of the BOM.

Edited May 28, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

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.

.

Nope wrong again. It is a way of showing my perception of the ridiculousness of the lengths some people go to to find fault with the Church and things associated with it.

[J Green]

Regarding the KJV theories, one additional problem.

Skousen points out that JS used words that were already obsolete prior to the KJV version and not found there. This would would indicate that the BOM was independent of this text. These words were replaced in the later editions of the BOM.

Royal's argument about archaic langauge actually excludes KJV passages and only deals with non-biblical passages. I don't think it has any bearing on questions of KJV dependency.

[Bernard Gui]

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?

Since we're indulging ourselves with speculation, here's one thought I have tinkered with.

The Mark passage is legitimate scripture, the actual words if Jesus to the apostles.

It was preserved and then added later by compilers.

Jesus gave the same instructions to his disciples in the Americas and Mormon quoted them.

[Bernard Gui]

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?

That is precisely how Jews describe the operation of the Urim and Thummim.

[cdowis]

Royal's argument about archaic langauge actually excludes KJV passages and only deals with non-biblical passages. I don't think it has any bearing on questions of KJV dependency.

OK, and if you can tell us where he got those words, I could almost agree with you. But you are stuck with the issue that there are enough differences between the KJV and the BOM verses that they certainly appear to be from independent sources, and the use of "KJV English" is refuted by his use of such archaic non-KJV words.

Actually, as I think about it, this hits the nail on the head. Both texts are generally quoting the same thing, but come from different traditions and families -- the record of Judah and the record of Joseph.

Edited May 28, 2013 by cdowis

[J Green]

OK, and if you can tell us where he got those words, I could almost agree with you. But you are stuck with the issue that there are enough differences between the KJV and the BOM verses that they certainly appear to be from independent sources, and the use of "KJV English" is refuted by his use of such archaic non-KJV words.

Actually, as I think about it, this hits the nail on the head. You have a steep hill to climb to claim that his translation is based on the KJV. Both texts are generally quoting the same thing, but come from different traditions and families -- the record of Judah and the record of Joseph.

Hi, cdowis. A few thoughts:

First, I don't claim that the entire translation is based on the KJV. If you've been following these discussions on this board over the years, you'll remember times I've discussed with David Bokovoy and others instances where I think the BoM text is actually quoting biblical passages and not using a KJV translation. My assumption is that there were times when Joseph did not realize that there was a quotation and thus did not switch to the KJV text. I think this is the beauty in looking at the translation process. And it's simply another indicator that Joseph was actively involved in the process as an inspired translator wasn't just dictating someone else's translation.

Second, I do think that the differences between the KJV text and the BoM translations are minor. And in this I'm simply following the lead of most LDS scholars. If you want to lay out a case for substantial differences that indicate disparate sources and challenges the conclusions of some of our best LDS minds, I'd love to see it.

Third, I still think you are misrepresenting Royal's argument. I suggest reading his article again before trying to apply the conclusions here. But once you articulate his argument correctly, I would maintain that Dr. Skousen hasn't fleshed out his argument enough (unless I'm missing a fully-reasoned piece somewhere). For example, he only provides a small control group of samples where I would like to see a larger set. Further, he mainly uses the OED language sampling dates as his reference point for language usage. But I think these are general dates of common usage and don't exclude discrete samples showing up later. I'd like to see better studies -- specially focused regional studies -- that would look at Joseph's world in terms of this dating.

Regards

[Questing Beast]

Royal Skousen's brief paper on archaic English in the BoM does not arrive at any conclusions. He points to examples of archaic (even medieval) English in the BoM, many of which have subsequently been edited out. What the presence of archaic English in an early 19th century "translation" means he does not say. He does not know, he only observes and reports.

This latest feature, of which I was not previously aware, only underscores a "problem" I have always had with the BoM as a whole: why we have what we have, when allusions to greater words are left out. It always bugged me even as a child that Jesus words to the Lehites and Mulekites were essentially NT sermons. The assertion that "not one hundredth part of what Jesus said" is included is annoying, extremely so in my case. Then we have the "sealed portion" to add to this "carrot" of the BoM. ANNOYING!!! "How long, O God", must we wait for other scripture? For the "sealed portion"? Etc.

I live by the BoM "commandments". I am weary of reading the same old things. "What has it profited us that we have kept his ordinances and walked mournfully before the Lord"? There arrives a point when it all doesn't matter much if at all any more. Either you live by the Spirit and receive, or you rebel and have that taken away which you had before.

Joy is only approached upon the principles of Joy. Either the life espoused in the BoM, in scripture, promotes Joy or it misleads, at the very least through unwarranted assertion. Do you believe the principles taught in the BoM or do you feel like casting them aside because of the many, too many, questions vis-a-vis its origin as a modern scripture?

I know where I stand. Yes, the BoM fails to convince me of a singular, exclusive authority claim by a dogmatically organized religion. I see nothing in the BoM or any of JS's revelations to warrant such an assertion. I see a great religious movement arising from perhaps the latest religion maker. This planet has already seen quite a few of them. The information is spiritually identical, and simply restates the principles of Joy, in the lingo and traditional culture of the original converts. Islam is no different in that respect, ditto Christianity and Judaism/Law of Moses. That these combined "Judeo-Christian" religions make up the total religious population of two-thirds and more of this planet is impressive but even so not conclusive proof of the "Abrahamic religions" being "God's true faith", even lumped together. A majority following was never proof of rightness claims, otherwise our forefathers' antithetical feelings toward interracial marriage would have been "of God". Medieval man's societal divisions into "those who labor, those who pray and those who fight" (i.e. peasants, clergy and nobility) would have been "of God", etc. Majority opinion does not the truth, or principles of Joy, establish.

What is religion for? To lead toward Joy. If religion is in any way antithetical toward that end for each and every individual, then individually I am justified in hiving off toward "God" the best I can, seeking Joy according to personal revelation. I no longer care for any aspects of the argument addressed by this thread. I read them, still, because I find the thinking of the various proponents interesting, as I find human thought and concerns interesting. But really, either the BoM, all scripture fills some need, or it does not. Nobody ought to be judging anyone by whether they champion this or that book, much less this or that variant of that book. If someone lives what I consider to be a "good life", doing their best to not offend or do injustice, then perhaps the methodology by which they arrived at such a state of being is not of importance, though it might, as part of the saga of their sojourn in a strange land, be intriguing....

Edited May 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Johnnie Cake]

I want to say this kindly...

It appears that Joseph used a tight translation process exactly where that process is most convenient for LDS apologists and he used a loose translation process exactly where that translation process becomes useful for apologists...I think that maybe we have unwittingly stumbled upon some pretty amazing evidence of Joseph's prophetic abilities.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[J Green]

and he used a lose translation process

You win some translations . . .

you lose some others.

I'd be interested in seeing the case for where the change hapens and how it results in an argument of convenience. Maybe I don't see it because my biases are in the way.

But for the record, with a degree in translation and most of my working life involved in translation in the military, the norm for most untrained translators is to swing back and forth along a continuum between looser and tighter translations. So we should expect to see both in the case of the BoM if it is a translation. But each case should be backed up by some kind of textual evidence and not by convenience. So it will be interesting to see your case.

Cheers

[J Green]

Royal Skousen's brief paper on archaic English in the BoM does not arrive at any conclusions. He points to examples of archaic (even medieval) English in the BoM, many of which have subsequently been edited out. What the presence of archaic English in an early 19th century "translation" means he does not say. He does not know, he only observes and reports.

I pulled the article back up to check again. He does arrive at a conclusion -- that the original vocabulary of the BoM dates to the 1500 and 1600s and not the 1900s. I also disagree with his conclusion until he fleshes it out better, as I stated above.

[Johnnie Cake]

I believe that one of the best windows into the translation process can be seen by examining the various version of the Lord’s Prayer found in the various scriptures

In the version of the King James Bible currently being used in the LDS Church Matthew 6:9-13 reads:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

But in 3 Nephi 13:9-13 the Lord’s Prayer reads thus:

After this manner therefore pray ye:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

It’s interesting to note that these two versions differ in several key areas. The Book of Mormon fails to include 2 sentences found in the common KJV of the Lord’s Prayer.

1. Thy kingdom come.
   
2. Give us this day our daily bread.
   

So we are left to conclude that either Christ did not say these words to the Nephites…or men merely added these words to the original Greek manuscripts in the years since those original manuscripts had been written and the Book of Mormon represents a purer form of Christ’s sermon?

And that would all be good and well were it not for the fact that the Lord’s Prayer found in our current KJVis NOT the same Lord’s Prayer Found in the original 1611 A.D. first edition copy of the KJV.

That version of The Lord’s Prayer as it was originally printed in the 1611 A.D. KJV reads:

“Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. “

Note that in the original 1611 KJV both of the sentences left out of the Book of Mormon version i.e. “Thy kingdom come” and “Give us this day our daily bread” were included in the original 1611 KJV, but the last sentence …” For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen” is NOT found in the original first edition 1611 A.D. KJV nor in ANY earlier version of the Lord’s Prayer.

Biblical scholars uniformly agree that this last line was added. In fact it started to show up in the versions of the KJV of the Bible by 1700 and it is NOT present in any prior version nor in ANY of the original Greek manuscripts....but is present in the Smith Family Bible

But wait these is still more…

A modern translation of the Lord’s Prayer from our earliest/oldest Original Greek Manuscripts into English… reads…

"This, then, is how you should pray:

"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come, your will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one'

Note how both sentences removed from the Book of Mormon ARE found in translations from our earliest Greek Manuscripts…yet do NOT include the last sentence found in the Book of Mormon’s and the version of the KJV which had been added to the Bible in the 1700’s versions

If the Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient scripture taken from Golden Plates…why does it include additions to the Bible made after the 1700’s?

If it is a more pure rendering of Christ’s sermon, why doesn’t it include the words given in our earliest Greek formats?

If during the translation process, Joseph took a short cut and merely copied the text from the Smith family Bible why when he saw Christ familiar sermon being given again to the Nephites did he remove those 2 sentences that were part of the oldest Greek manuscripts yet leave in the most recent man-made additions added in the 1700’s? In my mind, neither a loose nor a tight translation can explain away this difficulty. While I have my own opinion, out of respect I’ll keep that to my self.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

I would not allow this realization to undermine your faith in the church. One thing that we can be assured of is that Joseph Smith knew the Bible. Further, truth remains the same through the ages.

[J Green]

Johnnie,

A quick recap may be in order:

1. You stated that apologists will claim either a loose or a tight translation depending on the convenience of the moment.

2. I asked to see you make the argument that they really do this.

3. Your response is to cite a passage that you say cannot be explained by either a tight or a loose translation.

????

[Johnnie Cake]

Johnnie,

A quick recap may be in order:

1. You stated that apologists will claim either a loose or a tight translation depending on the convenience of the moment.

2. I asked to see you make the argument that they really do this.

3. Your response is to cite a passage that you say cannot be explained by either a tight or a loose translation.

????

Uggg.

Point 1: Yes, I did make that unsupported observation. It is just my impression from reading threads like this one. When it fits the translation is tight...when it doesn't fit or support the premise then the translation becomes a flexible or loose translation...but as I say...thats just my unscientific observation. But hey maybe he used both methods and that is the answer or perhaps he made the whole thing up.

Point 2: Explained in Point 1

Point 3: Was never intended as a response to your point 2...it stands or falls on its own merit

Edited May 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

But hey maybe he used both methods and that is the answer or perhaps he made the whole thing up.

I do think he used both (scrambling under the chaotic circumstances upon him), and with regards to the JST coming later, that is just a matter of “line upon line, precept upon precept” and another type of translation.

[Johnnie Cake]

I do think he used both (scrambling under the chaotic circumstances upon him), and with regards to the JST coming later, that is just a matter of “line upon line, precept upon precept” and another type of translation.

Well I do appreciate the candor...at least you acknowledge the discrepancy...so (according to CV75) he used both ...so during the parts of the translation process that don't run into any apologetic difficulties...he used a tight translation process and during and only during those parts of the Book of Mormon when he does run into apologetic translation difficulties ...he used a loose translation process...that makes perfect sense.

[Johnnie Cake]

The FAIR Wiki gives us this generous insight into the question of tight vs loose:

Joseph's wife Emma related her own experience:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

Scholars have examined and debated the issue of a "tight" versus "loose" translation method for many years. Although it is an interesting intellectual exercise, the exact process by which words and sentences were formed has no bearing upon the fact that the book was dictated by the "gift and power of God."

So....fortunatly they really nail it down for us....

[J Green]

Uggg.

Point 1: Yes, I did make that unsupported observation. It is just my impression from reading threads like this one. When it fits the translation is tight...when it doesn't fit or support the premise then the translation becomes a flexible or loose translation...but as I say...thats just my unscientific observation. But hey maybe he used both methods and that is the answer or perhaps he made the whole thing up.

Point 2: Explained in Point 1

Point 3: Was never intended as a response to your point 2...it stands or falls on its own merit

Thanks, Johnnie. It's clear I assumed your post was a reply to my query. Sorry for the assumption.

So in summary, the Lord's prayer example generally follows the KJV version with a few minor changes as well as a few significant ommissions. Do you think this can contribute anything to the discussion about Joseph's use of the KJV during translation? Or are you simply using it as exhibit A for fraud?

Cheers

Edited May 28, 2013 by J Green