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

[Johnnie Cake]

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

Well the OP mentioned the difficulties presented by the Lord's Prayer...I merely riffed off of the OP comment and explained the problem...So to answer your question...yes it contributes to the discussion...its quite clear to me (am I the only one) that Joseph Smtih copied his own family Bible word for word when necessary and added and subtracted when he felt it aided his narritive...otherwse we would have to explain why God would inspire Joseph to include man made portions of 1700 KJV Bible in the most correct book on earth.

To me the answer asked in the OP is quiet easy to answer...Yes...Joseph copied large doses of his family Bible into the Book of Mormon errors and all.

[grhammjr]

I'd be more concerned if the BoM had parts identical to the Koran.

[CV75]

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.

You seem to forget that he translated independently and without regard to future so-called "apologetic translation difficulties," whatever those are.

Edited May 28, 2013 by CV75

[Johnnie Cake]

I'd be more concerned if the BoM had parts identical to the Koran.

I have not read the Koran...but just last week I heard on an NPR program that 1/3 of the Koran is taken from the Hebrew Old Testiment...so I'm guessing that perhaps some of those portions also found their way into all three books...but I don't know for certain...but I'd guess Daniel Peterson might know the answer to that

Edited May 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

You seem to forget that he translated independently and without regard to future so-called "apologetic translation difficulties," whatever those are.

Yes you and I are in agreement...he did write the BoM without regard for the future...and that is exactly why we've run into difficulties...the witnesses claim of a tight translation didn't stand the test of time

The witnesses to the BoM translation process describe a tight translation process...the Loose translation theory is an apologetic invention to resolve difficulties in the tight translation process described by those witnesses

Edited May 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[omni]

No.

Please point to anything here on mortal earth that is or was perfect (save for God himself, Christ who possessed the attribute of immortality at the same time as he possessed the attribute of mortality).

In my original statement I said "so doesn't that mean it came from God and should therefore be perfect or at least correct? ." If God inspired JS to correct the mistakes of the Bible in the JST then would you not expect that to be the correct version?

[omni]

If you have ever seen the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon yourself, and if you had been familiar with the common 19th century view on the verbal inspiration of scripture, it actually makes perfect sense. It would have been easy for someone to make changes to the manuscript because it was already filled with such markings as Joseph would correct something Cowdery miswrote at the time. It was no sweat to add some more and alter it all further. No erasures of manuscript would have been needed but simply crossings out and rewritings in the style of Cowdery.

So then why didn't these men who were out to embarrass JS make any alterations in the original manuscript in order to prove JS a fraud? They could of quite easily changed several minor but important details like a person or place name and then "proven" the BoM as a fraud. It's commonly believed that Martin Harris' wife destroyed the manuscript in a fire, so why go through the enormous effort of creating an entire second set of plates out of one of the rarest metals on Earth if they were destroyed? If you don't believe they were destroyed then why go through all the effort of creating a second set of plates if the evil conspiring men didn't do what God said they were going to do?

[cinepro]

If you have ever seen the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon yourself, and if you had been familiar with the common 19th century view on the verbal inspiration of scripture, it actually makes perfect sense. It would have been easy for someone to make changes to the manuscript because it was already filled with such markings as Joseph would correct something Cowdery miswrote at the time. It was no sweat to add some more and alter it all further. No erasures of manuscript would have been needed but simply crossings out and rewritings in the style of Cowdery.

So explain how the plan would work. They have a manuscript that is already filled with "such markings", and then they mark it up some more...months (or years) later, Joseph has retranslated the lost pages, and the Book of Mormon is published. They then come forward and say "hey, the Book of Mormon is a fraud because we stole this manuscript of the first fifth of it, and it's different than the one that is in the published Book of Mormon..."

And potential readers would...what? Compare the published book with the stolen, years-old manuscript and decide that the book must be inauthentic because in addition to all the "markings" from Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery and the other scribes, the new markings are just too much.

Yeah, that's a great plan. (Not to mention that this plan requires the Book of Mormon to be finished and published in order to work, and Martin's wife Lucy didn't want him to spend his time and money on the project, so she wanted them to stop working on it, not to finish it and then fail.)

[Glenn101]

So explain how the plan would work. They have a manuscript that is already filled with "such markings", and then they mark it up some more...months (or years) later, Joseph has retranslated the lost pages, and the Book of Mormon is published. They then come forward and say "hey, the Book of Mormon is a fraud because we stole this manuscript of the first fifth of it, and it's different than the one that is in the published Book of Mormon..."

And potential readers would...what? Compare the published book with the stolen, years-old manuscript and decide that the book must be inauthentic because in addition to all the "markings" from Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery and the other scribes, the new markings are just too much.

Yeah, that's a great plan. (Not to mention that this plan requires the Book of Mormon to be finished and published in order to work, and Martin's wife Lucy didn't want him to spend his time and money on the project, so she wanted them to stop working on it, not to finish it and then fail.)

And the Book of Mormon was finished, and published.

And the people who had the manuscript would hardly have come forward and said, "look at this manuscript which we stole," but would have just produced the manuscript which could be verified as having been the one which Martin Harris obtained from Joseph. The critics would have published a comparison with the published Book of Mormon and the "original source document" and could show clear differences, thus making their case.

The Lord was wiser than me, you, or the other adversaries.

Glenn

[ERayR]

Well the OP mentioned the difficulties presented by the Lord's Prayer...I merely riffed off of the OP comment and explained the problem...So to answer your question...yes it contributes to the discussion...its quite clear to me (am I the only one) that Joseph Smtih copied his own family Bible word for word when necessary and added and subtracted when he felt it aided his narritive...otherwse we would have to explain why God would inspire Joseph to include man made portions of 1700 KJV Bible in the most correct book on earth.

To me the answer asked in the OP is quiet easy to answer...Yes...Joseph copied large doses of his family Bible into the Book of Mormon errors and all.

How is this a problem?

[ERayR]

In my original statement I said "so doesn't that mean it came from God and should therefore be perfect or at least correct? ." If God inspired JS to correct the mistakes of the Bible in the JST then would you not expect that to be the correct version?

The problem is that you are insisting that God do it your way. I would be careful taking that high of a judgement seat.

[ERayR]

So then why didn't these men who were out to embarrass JS make any alterations in the original manuscript in order to prove JS a fraud? They could of quite easily changed several minor but important details like a person or place name and then "proven" the BoM as a fraud. It's commonly believed that Martin Harris' wife destroyed the manuscript in a fire, so why go through the enormous effort of creating an entire second set of plates out of one of the rarest metals on Earth if they were destroyed? If you don't believe they were destroyed then why go through all the effort of creating a second set of plates if the evil conspiring men didn't do what God said they were going to do?

I take it you have not read the Book of Mormon. One set was for secular or governmental recording the other for religious recordings. Jacob 3:13 And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings.

[canard78]

We don't know that Jesus never said any of it. All we reasonably can know is that this text is likely not original to the Gospel of Mark, being regarded as quite close in style to Luke. For instance, Westcott and Hort, who rejected this passage from Mark were not willing to jettison it entirely as not even containing the words of Jesus from another, now lost, ancient source. It is entirely possible that the passage contains genuine words of Jesus from a once separate ancient source that later was used to fill in the gaps in Mark's original ending that was perhaps lost very early on. I don't believe that it is original to Mark but I am certain that it does come from another ancient source. The old copy of Mark that Ireneaus quoted c. A.D. 175-185 contained those verses.

You can probably gain another 15 years to 160 with Justin Martyr. But all this suggest is that some had a copy that had alreadu had the 'long ending' added. It took another century or two for the long ending to reach wider use. Perhaps that simply helps us follow the trail to by whom or where the long ending was added.

Mark 16:8 is where the oldest manuscripts end. We then jump into a different writing style and a brief summary of all the other people he visited. Then we have the 'go ye into the world/take up serpents etc' instruction which has clear echoes of the miracles in Acts.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Do we actually teach that? Those who believe and are baptise should evidence their belief via tongues/serpents/poison. This 'promise' (which is more likely the interpolator back-rationalising Acts) appears no-where else in scripture other than Mark 16 & Mormon 9. It's odd and out of character.

I agree that it is an early/ancient addition to Mark (around the 2nd C). But there's very little to suggest it is the original words of Jesus copied down by someone at the scene. What is your evidence that makes you 'certain' this is added from an authentic, original and reliable source?

We have a second issue though. We excuse the errors in the original BoM manuscript because they were spoken perfectly but then dictated/heard and described in error. Natural human error.

What then, bearing that in mind, are the odds that the following people would make no errors at all to the point of delivering identical versions in both the BoM and KJV of things like the sermon on the mount or Mark 16:

- The original person hearing it and taking 'live' notes (Nephi in BoM?, unknown in the bible)

- The person compiling/condensing the notes into prose (Mormon/Mat/Mar/Luk/John)

- The copyists through the decades (bible applicable only)

- The translating team (King James' men/Joseph &Oliver)

We go out of our way to point out that the Bible has errors because of the weakness of men. Things lost through apostacy, through copying, through corruption, through the weakness in human translation. We praise the BoM because it avoids all these issues (prophet to prophet via gold plates and a scribe). And yet! When we find any quote in the BoM from the New Testament KJV it is usually identical but for a few minor changes for context (but usually only the context words change). If God is able to protect the bible sections that will later be quoted in the Book of Mormon (even to the point of getting someone to add in a random 14 verses into Mark 16 that had been previously omitted), why not simply protect all of the bible and allow the purer gospel to reach far more people?

We simply don't believe in a God like that. We teach repeatedly that the Bible is limited due to the corruptions of men.

This leads to only one plausible conclusion. The BoM quotes of the KJV are quite simply that. Not something Mormon actually wrote, but a copy of the words that 16thC translators and poets chose.

As to the mechanics of that (memory/seeing his parent's copy through the stone/borrowing a neighbours edition to 'solve a dispute'/words appearing on the seer stone 'LED') there's obviously room for debate. But I see little likelihood that Nephi3/Mormon just happened to write down the words identically to what 1600 years worth of bible creators would do.

Joseph copying from the KJV (by whatever means) doesn't mean the BoM isn't divine.

[Johnnie Cake]

How is this a problem?

It's not a problem at all ERayR if you can give credible answers to these yet unanswered questions I posed earlier....

01. 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?

02. If it is a more pure rendering of Christ’s sermon,(which is quoted word for word in all but those missing original phrases) why doesn’t it include the same words given in our earliest Greek formats?

03. 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?  

Tight or loose....neither can explain these away....that leaves....ummmm...

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Gervin]

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."

If nothing else, this thread points to the fact that it isn't a fact that the book was dictated by the gift and power of God. It is a belief.

[omni]

The problem is that you are insisting that God do it your way. I would be careful taking that high of a judgement seat.

I never once insisted he do it "my way", but I do expect this issue to make a modicum of sense. The words in the BoM were straight from the Lord's mouth to the prophets ears. There should have been none of the translation or scribal errors we see in the Bible, yet JS corrected some of these verses in the JST. Why ErayR?

[Johnnie Cake]

I never once insisted he do it "my way", but I do expect this issue to make a modicum of sense. The words in the BoM were straight from the Lord's mouth to the prophets ears. There should have been none of the translation or scribal errors we see in the Bible, yet JS corrected some of these verses in the JST. Why ErayR?

I'm just going to get comfortable, grab some popcorn and a drink, sit back and enjoy the show...

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Tacenda]

I never once insisted he do it "my way", but I do expect this issue to make a modicum of sense. The words in the BoM were straight from the Lord's mouth to the prophets ears. There should have been none of the translation or scribal errors we see in the Bible, yet JS corrected some of these verses in the JST. Why ErayR?

I feel like JS should have never put the Bible as not being as correct as the BoM, it clearly is just as correct, if not more, and has actual identifiable landmarks and scrolls!

[Johnnie Cake]

I feel like JS should have never put the Bible as not being as correct as the BoM, it clearly is just as correct, if not more, and has actual identifiable landmarks and scrolls!

Wow...Tacenda...did I die and go to an alternative universe....you've just proved that I can be surprised...

[Tacenda]

My last allowed post of the day. I'm only allowed 12 a day. So if I have further things to say, do you mind if I edit this post and watch for a remark to you if needed.

Now.... in your post you said you were surprised, what about, if you don't mind me asking. Don't worry I can take it.

[Johnnie Cake]

My last allowed post of the day. I'm only allowed 12 a day. So if I have further things to say, do you mind if I edit this post and watch for a remark to you if needed.

Now.... in your post you said you were surprised, what about, if you don't mind me asking. Don't worry I can take it.

#1. You're only allowed 12 posts a day?

#2. I'm surprised because I actually agreed with you...well kinda...in that I believe the bible is more correct , despite being filled with fiction, then the BoM?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

It's not a problem at all ERayR if you can give credible answers to these yet unanswered questions I posed earlier....

The credibility of any answers I would/could give is dependent on the mindset of the one receiving those answers. What one finds credible another may not. Credibility is a subjective. Thus as you have been presented with all the answers I could give and haven't found them credible it would be a waste of time for me to play your game. However there have been and are large numbers of people have found them credible so it seems that whether or not you find them credible is up to you.

[omni]

I take it you have not read the Book of Mormon. One set was for secular or governmental recording the other for religious recordings. Jacob 3:13 And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings.

Umm, yes actually I have read the BoM, many times in fact.

The following scriptures seem to agree with me that the large plates of Nephi were created for the express purpose of solving the problem created by the lost 116 pages. In fact I've been taught this was the reason why all my life, haven't you?

1 Nephi 19:3

And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

Words of Mormon 1:7

⁶ But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.

⁷ And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

D&C 10:

38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the ^aplates of Nephi;

39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.

40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I ^awould bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—

41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;

42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will ^aconfound those who have altered my words.

43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my ^awork; yea, I will show unto them that my ^bwisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

44 Behold, they have only got a part, or an ^aabridgment of the account of Nephi.

[ERayR]

I never once insisted he do it "my way", but I do expect this issue to make a modicum of sense. The words in the BoM were straight from the Lord's mouth to the prophets ears. There should have been none of the translation or scribal errors we see in the Bible, yet JS corrected some of these verses in the JST. Why ErayR?

Why do you all insist Joseph was an automated, biological stenographic machine? Read D & C 9:8. Several times if necessary.

[ERayR]

If nothing else, this thread points to the fact that it isn't a fact that the book was dictated by the gift and power of God. It is a belief.

Whatever floats your boat.