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

[Johnnie Cake]

You seem to still forget that neither the witnesses nor the apologists have anything to do with how Joseph actually translated. They can only tell of what they see or understand. The problem is that people unreasonably expect them to see and tell more than what they actually saw (or understand), when all the witnesses and apologists can reasonably do is relate their best understanding of what went on, in good faith.

I agree...but it is all we have...and what they describe is a tight translation or a word for word translation

[CV75]

I agree...but it is all we have...

All we have of what, for what?

[guerreiro9]

I agree...but it is all we have...and what they describe is a tight translation or a word for word translation

My current thoughts on the translation (as if anyone is interested in my thoughts) is that it was closer to a "tight" translation. This seems to fit the evidence we do have better than an entirely "loose" translation. It was not as simple as just reading the words that appeared however. Oliver Cowdery was much more educated than Joseph Smith and he was unable to translate. If it was just a simple matter of reading Oliver would have been much more proficient, but this was not the case. The process seemed to require a great deal from the translator, but produced a very tightly controlled composition.

-guerreiro9

[Johnnie Cake]

All we have of what, for what?

the only knowledge of the translation process is from those who claimed to have witnessed it...its not perfect but it all we have...

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[bcuzbcuz]

This, of course, can NOT be verified because none of "the original writings" are extant.

Yes, how right you are. We do not have the original writings.

Matthew is written entirely in third voice, saying "they" did this or "they" did that. Even when he talks about Matthew he says "him" and not "me". So the "who" that wrote Matthew is indeed in question. Paul called some of the apostles "unlettered", illiterate, in other words. The earliest copies of the gospels are written in Greek and whoever wrote the first writings of Matthew was a highly educated, Greek-speaking, Christian, who probably lived outside Palesine. Matthew was written many years after the fact.

Equally so, the account written in Luke, was written in Greek. Remember, Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. Much of Luke is copied from Mark, written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. This Luke is commonly referenced as "Luke, companion of Paul", although many have no clear picture of "who" this Luke is.

From these Greek scriptures, neither Luke nor Matthew first included the doxology ending to the Lord's prayer. These additional lines of text were added sometime between the first surviving copies of the Greek texts and publication of the King Jame's Bible. Just who and when and why this text was added in unknown.

[ERayR]

I'm disappointed that you wouldn't take a stab at it... but it is what it is…perhaps there is no good answer for those questions from an LDS apologetic side.

See my post #117

To answer your statement, I often make a fool of myself and I'm the first to admit it. ERayR, I'm not your nemesis nor do I wish to be your MD&D foil...But you and I seem to consistently find ourselves arguing opposite talking points. You’ve accused me of merely seeking "Points"...nothing could be further from the truth...but what I do seek is understanding, the testing of my personal beliefs and when shown to be false the jettisoning of those false beliefs all with the long term goal of truth discovery.

A trait that we share.

It may just be your posting tone but I sense a bit of mockery in your choice of words and their construct.

Nothing in my personal belief system is sacred to me...Nothing....I am willing to throw off any false understanding or belief when given additional insight and knowledge that some perceived knowledge is in fact false. That is why I am a firm believer in evoluation rather than traditional biblical creation....I opened myself up to ahve my former beliefs tested and had to accept the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution...which unfortuanatly caused me to jettison Biblical creationism.

I am truly sorry that you have nothing that you can hold sacred. As for me my spiritual witness of the truth of Joseph Smiths claims and my temple worship experiences are very sacred to me.

As for evolution I am a firm supporter within limits. I look at the evidence that things do change but find no evidence of diverging into new species. It is very much a calculus problem wherein something is valid within certain boundaries but does not hold true beyond the boundaries. Beyond the boundaries evolution destroys the fall and with it the atonement.

I honestly wish we could just have conversations on this board where ideas could be tested and scrutinized with mutual respect for all participants without the vitriol of personal venom being spewed like confetti falling from a Mexican piñata.

Probably due to perceived posting tone. Be careful what words are used and how they are used. I try but do not always succeed. What affects me the most is when I perceive disrespect for things I hold sacred.

[ERayR]

the only knowledge of the translation process is from those who claimed to have witnessed it...its not perfect but it all we have...

Then why give it undue importance? The only one I know who actually tried translating was Oliver Cowdry and out of that we get D & C 9:8.

[Johnnie Cake]

See my post #117

A trait that we share.

It may just be your posting tone but I sense a bit of mockery in your choice of words and their construct.

I am truly sorry that you have nothing that you can hold sacred. As for me my spiritual witness of the truth of Joseph Smiths claims and my temple worship experiences are very sacred to me.

As for evolution I am a firm supporter within limits. I look at the evidence that things do change but find no evidence of diverging into new species. It is very much a calculus problem wherein something is valid within certain boundaries but does not hold true beyond the boundaries. Beyond the boundaries evolution destroys the fall and with it the atonement.

Probably due to perceived posting tone. Be careful what words are used and how they are used. I try but do not always succeed. What affects me the most is when I perceive disrespect for things I hold sacred.

Fair enough...lets move forward...

[Johnnie Cake]

Then why give it undue importance? The only one I know who actually tried translating was Oliver Cowdry and out of that we get D & C 9:8.

We have different perspectives of the so called translation process...you believe it to be done by the gift of God while I believe it to have been purely man-made.

01. There were no plates used during... ah hum... the translation process.

02. The same device used in a fraud scheme to seek buried treasure… (unless you actually believe that Joseph could find or did find buried treasure) somehow miraculously became an instrument through which God translated unseen Golden Plates

03. Witnesses describe a word for word translation process…but a tight translation process creates difficulties once one runs into anachronisms….thus the apologetic invention of the loose translation.

[Nevo]

Jesus taught in Palestine most likely in Aramaic. Someone wrote down his teachings, perhaps many years later. It is very unlikely that the actual spoken words were recorded. Christ's teachings (not his words) were more easily preserved and at some point were written by people who spoke Greek. At some later time the remaining Greek manuscripts (and others) were translated into English.

Jesus taught in the Americas in an unknown language. Someone wrote down his teachings, though probably not word for word. Hundreds of years later Mormon abridged these teachings and engraved them on plates using modified Egyptian characters. The actual spoken language these characters represented is unknown, and Mormon may have had to translate from one language to another in his abridgment. At some later time this abridgment was translated into English.

It seems that the one thing we can be sure of from all this is that we don't have Jesus' actual words (ipsissima verba) in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, except perhaps for isolated logia.

My problem with the Sermon on the Mount appearing in the Book of Mormon isn't that it is copied nearly word-for-word from the KJV. It's that it is the Sermon on the Mount—a sermon Jesus almost certainly never gave (at least in its Matthean form).

[ERayR]

We have different perspectives of the so called translation process...you believe it to be done by the gift of God while I believe it to have been purely man-made.

If we are going to be able to continue to dialog your use of mockery in the form of such phrases as "so called" be checked. You complained about my posting animus toward you and wondered why. I told you but your posting tone has not changed. I can dialog gently or sharply. Your choice.

01. There were no plates used during... ah hum... the translation process.

Again your mockery is noted. There were several who saw the plates and testify of them but perhaps the best testimony of them is that his enemies were sure he had them and made several attempts to steal them.

02. The same device used in a fraud scheme to seek buried treasure… (unless you actually believe that Joseph could find or did find buried treasure) somehow miraculously became an instrument through which God translated unseen Golden Plates

Again mockery noted. Whether he could or could not find buried treasure is irrelevant to me. The stone did not miraculously become anything other than what it always was, a way to focus.

03. Witnesses describe a word for word translation process…but a tight translation process creates difficulties once one runs into anachronisms….thus the apologetic invention of the loose translation.

Witnesses describe what they thought they saw. Oliver Cowdery was the only one who actually attempted translation. This effort gets us D. & C. 9:8. Why don't you actually read it before replying.

Edited May 29, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

We have different perspectives of the so called translation process...you believe it to be done by the gift of God while I believe it to have been purely man-made.

01. There were no plates used during... ah hum... the translation process.

There was a stone in a hat, which was all that was necessary. Can you explain how JS "ah hum" wrote the BOM with a hat covering his face -- did he have a candle in the hat where he read from a manuscript? Was there a window in that hat?

02. The same device used in a fraud scheme to seek buried treasure… (unless you actually believe that Joseph could find or did find buried treasure) somehow miraculously became an instrument through which God translated unseen Golden Plates

I think the angel Moroni showed JS the location of the plates, but see no reference to his showing buried treasure. While the use of the stone in both situations is interesting, I can draw no conclusions. A pen and paper are used to write poetry, and also used to defaud people.

Finally, I find your use of "fraud scheme" unsupported by the evidence. Perhaps you can create a thread where you are able to prove that he swindled people knowingly, and ran away with the ill-gotten gains. Others may call it a silly and foolish scheme, similar to panning for gold. If I have investors who furnish me the money to pan for gold, does that, per se, make it a "fraud scheme" if I find no gold?

03. Witnesses describe a word for word translation process…but a tight translation process creates difficulties once one runs into anachronisms….thus the apologetic invention of the loose translation.

Please start a thread on those "anachronisms" in the BOM. Let's see if you can succeed where others have failed.

Edited May 29, 2013 by cdowis

[omni]

My problem with the Sermon on the Mount appearing in the Book of Mormon isn't that it is copied nearly word-for-word from the KJV. It's that it is the Sermon on the Mount—a sermon Jesus almost certainly never gave (at least in its Matthean form).

Interesting...please expound.

[bcuzbcuz]

Well it's a good thing that Joseph Smith didn't claim to be making a translation from the earliest Greek versions of Luke or Matthew or you would have a valid point. What he did claim is that he translated some ancient writings that contained the teachings of Jesus into English. This translation contained a phrase that while not extant in the earliest Greek versions of Luke and Matthew is part of the earliest Christian tradition and is extant in some of the earliest "non-biblical" Christian writings.

So what conclusions can we draw definitively? Not a whole lot. We can say for sure that the earliest extant versions of Matthew and Luke do not contain the phrase, but that does not mean that Christ did not use the phrase in his teachings. We can say that the phrase is contained in the earliest Christian writings and traditions, but that does not tell us whether Christ actually used the phrase. It would not have been out of place for Christ to teach this phrase to the Nephites even if he didn't teach it while in Jerusalem. Really I don't see much of an issue here. We can't really say much of anything.

-guerreiro9

Take pause and reflect on what you're really saying. Link together the thoughts you're giving voice to and see if it makes sense. You're saying that an expression, used in the Eastern Orthodox priest liturgy but that wasn't used in the Greek Bible text, that was written many, many years (30 to 70 years) after the death of Christ, a piece of text that gets lost or taken away, then somehow gets re-added to the text and then confirmed by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon? It wasn't written down originally due to oversight, human error or incorrect memories but then gets found again after someone, somewhere, thinks it fits better in the text?

Or is it not simpler to say that Joseph Smith had the King Jame's version readily available and used the same text copied from that version?

[Johnnie Cake]

If we are going to be able to continue to dialog your use of mockery in the form of such phrases as "so called" be checked. You complained about my posting animus toward you and wondered why. I told you but your posting tone has not changed. I can dialog gently or sharply. Your choice.

Again your mockery is noted. There were several who saw the plates and testify of them but perhaps the best testimony of them is that his enemies were sure he had them and made several attempts to steal them.

Again mockery noted. Whether he could or could not find buried treasure is irrelevant to me. The stone did not miraculously become anything other than what it always was, a way to focus.

Witnesses describe what they thought they saw. Oliver Cowdery was the only one who actually attempted translation. This effort gets us D. & C. 9:8. Why don't you actually read it before replying.

I'm sorry...it is not my intent to offend you...what you see as mockery I see as me expressing my position...from my perspective. I do not believe that a translation in any way, shape or form ever took place. So for me to use the word "translation" does not clearly convey my position clearly...but when I put an "ah hum" in front of it...it expresses my skepticism.

I want to be respectful yet convey my views....I am trying my very best to tone it down and be respectful...could you at least give me the benefit of the doubt?

[Johnnie Cake]

Witnesses describe what they thought they saw. Oliver Cowdery was the only one who actually attempted translation. This effort gets us D. & C. 9:8. Why don't you actually read it before replying.

I did...but deleted what I wrote out of respect for you...I'm really trying to self edit...but damn its hard

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[cdowis]

Take pause and reflect on what you're really saying. Link together the thoughts you're giving voice to and see if it makes sense. You're saying that an expression, used in the Eastern Orthodox priest liturgy but that wasn't used in the Greek Bible text, that was written many, many years (30 to 70 years) after the death of Christ, a piece of text that gets lost or taken away, then somehow gets re-added to the text and then confirmed by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon? It wasn't written down originally due to oversight, human error or incorrect memories but then gets found again after someone, somewhere, thinks it fits better in the text?

Or is it not simpler to say that Joseph Smith had the King Jame's version readily available and used the same text copied from that version?

You assume that the Greek Bible text contains the original writings. For example, the evidence indicates that the book of Matthew in Aramaic is an older text tradition than the greek version, and it contains this phrase. You cannot assume that an older manuscript is superior to a later one.

I can assume that BOM is a record of the original, and has nothing to do with the KJV text. Attempting to shoehorn the KJV text into the BOM has several difficulties, not making it so "simple" to make that assumption.

Edited May 29, 2013 by cdowis

[CV75]

the only knowledge of the translation process is from those who claimed to have witnessed it...its not perfect but it all we have...

No, it is not all we have. We have experience and common sense; an understanding of how translation is done, how witnesses witness, and of spiritual gifts; we have Joseph Smith’s own description, scriptural references, and so forth.

What purpose is served by limiting an understanding of the translation process to reports by first-hand witnesses and to apologetic and critical commentary on those records, when so much else is required for proper perspective on the subject?

[canard78]

This is how I see the situation.

Jesus taught in Palestine most likely in Aramaic. Someone wrote down his teachings, perhaps many years later. It is very unlikely that the actual spoken words were recorded. Christ's teachings (not his words) were more easily preserved and at some point were written by people who spoke Greek. At some later time the remaining Greek manuscripts (and others) were translated into English.

Jesus taught in the Americas in an unknown language. Someone wrote down his teachings, though probably not word for word. Hundreds of years later Mormon abridged these teachings and engraved them on plates using modified Egyptian characters. The actual spoken language these characters represented is unknown, and Mormon may have had to translate from one language to another in his abridgment. At some later time this abridgment was translated into English.

If the meaning of the teachings was the same in both cases, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to be translated into the same language in the same way, even though they may not have been word for word the same when given.

-guerreiro9

So neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon contain the actual words of Christ. Just a writer's (and later translators) interpretation of them. And yet both these processes throw up an (almost) identical rendition of those original sermons?

Umm... How?

[canard78]

No, it is not all we have. We have experience and common sense; an understanding of how translation is done, how witnesses witness, and of spiritual gifts; we have Joseph Smith’s own description, scriptural references, and so forth.

What purpose is served by limiting an understanding of the translation process to reports by first-hand witnesses and to apologetic and critical commentary on those records, when so much else is required for proper perspective on the subject?

Yes we have common sense. 'The BoM has many passages that are identical to the KJV NT despite all the different imperfect humans involved in producing the latter.' Common sense tells me... They are a direct copy from the source (perhaps inspired to do so).

[bcuzbcuz]

I think the angel Moroni showed JS the location of the plates, but see no reference to his showing buried treasure. While the use of the stone in both situations is interesting, I can draw no conclusions. A pen and paper are used to write poetry, and also used to defaud people.

An interesting turn of phrase. And I mean exactly that, a turn of phrase. You take a horse and cart and turn it into a cart and horse and think you have provided a reasonable argument. Go back to the original statement. Magic stones to find hidden treasure becomes magic stones that translate the word of God. Same tools, different outcomes but you "draw no conclusions".

If I receive a letter in my e-mail, from some unknown person, claiming I have a long lost relative who has left me millions of dollars, these millions I can be sent IF I merely submit to this unknown person, a bank statement, or a credit card number or send a small sum of money to prove my good faith, do I close down my e-mail service, stop going on the internet or simply consign such mail from unknown persons to Junk Mail? Is the message or the messenger that I should suspect? Or both? Or should I conclude that since he/she used the internet, the same internet I use daily, that it must mean that I am to take the e-mail at face value? Draw your own conclusions.

[ERayR]

I'm sorry...it is not my intent to offend you...what you see as mockery I see as me expressing my position...from my perspective. I do not believe that a translation in any way, shape or form ever took place. So for me to use the word "translation" does not clearly convey my position clearly...but when I put an "ah hum" in front of it...it expresses my skepticism.

I want to be respectful yet convey my views....I am trying my very best to tone it down and be respectful...could you at least give me the benefit of the doubt?

We already know you disagree and are skeptical. I will note your mockery and disrespect whenever it appears in something I am reading. Please don't expect less.

[Johnnie Cake]

We have different perspectives of the so called translation process...you believe it to be done by the gift of God while I believe it to have been purely man-made.

01. There were no plates used during... ah hum... the translation process.

There was a stone in a hat, which was all that was necessary. Can you explain how JS "ah hum" wrote the BOM with a hat covering his face -- did he have a candle in the hat where he read from a manuscript? Was there a window in that hat?

While I concede that Joseph's method of writting his tome was a bit unusual...I suspect that he wrote it like every other human produced book...by creating thoughts in his mind and expressing them to paper via a scribe

02. The same device used in a fraud scheme to seek buried treasure… (unless you actually believe that Joseph could find or did find buried treasure) somehow miraculously became an instrument through which God translated unseen Golden Plates

I think the angel Moroni showed JS the location of the plates, but see no reference to his showing buried treasure. While the use of the stone in both situations is interesting, I can draw no conclusions. A pen and paper are used to write poetry, and also used to defaud people.

We know that Joseph obtained his stone while digging a well for Mason Chase...this is the same stone he used to seek buried treasure for Josiah Stowell...and it was becasue of his failure to find buried treasure that he was convicted and fined for Glass looking in his 1926 trial...I don't believe that any of this is in dispute.

Finally, I find your use of "fraud scheme" unsupported by the evidence. Perhaps you can create a thread where you are able to prove that he swindled people knowingly, and ran away with the ill-gotten gains. Others may call it a silly and foolish scheme, similar to panning for gold. If I have investors who furnish me the money to pan for gold, does that, per se, make it a "fraud scheme" if I find no gold?

Perhaps we have a different difinition of fraud...to me fraud is to make a false claim and claim it to be true when you know it is false. Are you suggesting that Joseph believed he could find buried treasure?

03. Witnesses describe a word for word translation process…but a tight translation process creates difficulties once one runs into anachronisms….thus the apologetic invention of the loose translation.

Please start a thread on those "anachronisms" in the BOM. Let's see if you can succeed where others have failed.

I'll trade my horse for a tapir anyday...I beleive that that Tapir has been kicked to death

I love the challenge....

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

I did...but deleted what I wrote out of respect for you...I'm really trying to self edit...but damn its hard

What you are saying is that you don't find it credible. Before you said you would suspend your credibility criteria. I told you then it was not possible. Seems I am right.

[Ahab]

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.

While that is a rational explanation, I think it happened differently. First consider that God is helping Joseph learn to become a prophet/seer/translator and that instead of God wanting Joseph to open a book and copy from it what he would instead want to do is help Joseph to develop and perfect his thought processes. Joseph read the Bible quite a bit, both by himself and with members of his family, so it's not as if the text in the Bible was totally new to him. With the help of the Holy Spirit the text was brought into his mind, again, and as perfectly as if he was looking at it, again. And not just out of the blue, but when Joseph was in the process of trying to translate similar passages in the Book of Mormon. I imagine him having a lot of Aha! moments when he realized what those passages in the Book of Mormon were essentially saying, with him realizing he had read passages like that before, and then as he tried to remember what he had read in the Bible the Holy Spirit helped him to remember. Imagine that, and imagine how that would help Joseph learn to receive communications from God through the Holy Spirit. At some point the training wheels came off as Joseph became better and better at receiving communications through the Holy Spirit.