LDS Mormons and the Bible

[He is the way]

Nobody here's asking you to deny your testimony, HITW.

The point is that if Mormons more generally would stop confusing making faith-based claims with making historical or factual/science-based claims, things around here would go a lot more smoothly.

It is a faith-based claim that Joseph Smith translated anything ("by the power of God" or not), because it sure as heck isn't a scientific or historical one. When placed against the analysis of impartial actual scientists and translators examining the only actual Egyptian text JS was known to have ever possessed, which is called "The Book of Abraham" by the Mormons, JS' 'translation' of it is so wildly inaccurate as to make dreaming it all up while looking into a hat actually seem like a plausible method by which he may have arrived at what he claimed it was.

It is a faith-based claim that the Mormon religion is 'true', whatever that even means. (Historically accurate? No. A restoration of some kind of 'taken away' early Christian Church it is not.)

Etc., etc.

"What was revealed to you" doesn't mean jack squat. Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel revealed to him the direct, spoken word of God in a cave in Arabia. Are you going to follow him, too, since he likewise really felt as though it was revealed to him? Obviously not. What makes JS or any other Mormon leader any different than Muhammad? A different time and place, maybe, but the same old restorationist song and dance. It didn't make sense in Muhammad's day, it didn't make sense in Joseph Smith's day, it doesn't make sense now, and it won't make sense when the next charlatan looking for easy access to women, money, and power comes along with the newest 'revelation' said to 'clarify' or supersede what has come before it. JS is nothing but one in a long line of many such phonies. THere's nothing particularly spectaular about him, and whatever 'revealed' that he was telling the truth to you has more in common with whatever 'revealed' similar lies to other false prophets who you surely reject, despite their own followers truly believing in them and refusing to reject them.

Mormonism is not special. At all.

So lets compare the Book of Mormon to the Quran:

Quran word count 77,449 time to write 23 years
Book of Mormon word count 273,725 time to write 65 days

That is a huge difference.

 

[He is the way]

You are comparing apples and turnips!! Grammatical errors can occur within any book---I am stating the BOM contains errors that belong to the KJV --yet you claim JS did not have it to copy from---you are then saying that God dictated to JS speaking the same errors that belong to the KJV! Can you not see how absolutely unbelievable that is?

Errors according to who? You?

 

[dzheremi]

So lets compare the Book of Mormon to the Quran:

Quran word count 77,449 time to write 23 years
Book of Mormon word count 273,725 time to write 65 days

That is a huge difference.

And this means something?

 

[He is the way]

And this means something?

It means your comparison is invalid.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, I'm sorry...I wasn't aware that the comparison I was making was about the number of words in each text or how long it took them to be 'revealed'.

Probably because the comparison I was making was not about the number of words in each text or how long it took them to be 'revealed'.

 

[mmksparbud]

So lets compare the Book of Mormon to the Quran:

Quran word count 77,449 time to write 23 years
Book of Mormon word count 273,725 time to write 65 days

That is a huge difference.

Wow!! Incredible! Now---subtract the 250,000 that came from the KJV. Quran, 77,449 BOM, 23,250----Any woman will have said that many words within the first 5 hours of being awake.

 

[mmksparbud]

Errors according to who? You?

The writings of Isaiah were stored on the Brass Plates in ancient Hebrew in 600 B.C. Isaiah 19:18 calls it the language of Canaan. Nephi took these to America and translated them to Reformed Egyptian on the Small Plates. Joseph translated these to English. So we have Ancient Hebrew -> Alternate Egyptian -> English.

Now consider another timeline, where those same Hebrew writings of Isaiah were translated to Jacobean English. Wikipedia says "For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.” This KJV Bible translation went through multiple languages and had many influences.

How could these two very different timelines have produced nearly identical scriptures? There are differences in the Bible and BoM Isaiah chapters, but the differences seem to be more because of Joseph's memory errors when dictating rather than from truly divergent history. I say this because the BoM contains words (like the italics, see below) and phrases that could only have come from the KJV.

So the question is not "did he copy the KJV", but "WHY did he copy the KJV?" There are faithful, mental gymnastic answers and straightforward, unfaithful answers.

The Italic Words

The italicized words in the KJV were added by the translators to make their translation more understandable. They were not part of the original Hebrew and Greek. In other words, they’re not found in any original source of the Bible, and they’re not found in non-KJV translations. It is impossible that these words could have been on the Brass Plates, which were written 2,000 years earlier. Royal Skousen (a faithful apologist) calculated that of the 392 italicized words in KJV Isaiah, 242 of the words, or 62 percent, are exactly included in the BoM.

Some have suggested that it was difficult to translate, so when he saw the same text on the Brass Plates, he used his Bible instead of retranslating. I accepted this explanation for much of my life. However, recent explanations of Joseph’s translation process, such as the official LDS essay, are clear on his process. He used his seer stone with his face in a hat. Consistent witnesses are clear that Joseph never had a Bible near him (he never had the Golden Plates near him, either).

One telling example is the Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi. It is an obvious copy of the KJV, but it contains changes such as using Nephite money instead of Hebrew money. It makes sense that Jesus would use the money of the Nephites. However, most other references to Hebrew/Roman culture are left intact: the word "Raca", going the extra mile and Roman law, sheep and herding, and many others. It seems like Joseph made an attempt to convert the KJV text to fit within the BoM, but he missed many references because he lacked the education to know which changes were needed.

Deutero-Isaiah Chapters

Most bible scholars agree that chapters 40-55 were written after Lehi left Jerusalem. Although Mormon scholars don't agree to this (because it would invalidate the BoM). Others have touched on this one, so I'll keep it brief.

If the scholars are right about Isaiah being written by 3+ different authors, it is impossible that the Brass Plates could have included these chapters of Isaiah. They were not created until well after Lehi’s family took the Brass Plates with them. Even if Joseph was copying from his KJV for an appropriate reason, these chapters still wouldn’t have been on the Brass Plates.

The Gospel of Mark

Mormon 9: 22-24 quotes the final verses in the Gospel of Mark. The quote is nearly word for word. However how could this quote have been made when that part of Mark was added by Christians around 500 A.D.? In all early manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark ends with Mark 16: 8. In later manuscripts, verses 9-19 are added. Different variations of the verses show up, but as time goes on, the current version becomes standardized.

Scholars are pretty consistent in saying these verses were added by later Christians and were not part of the book. The original Greek text for the verses is stylistically different than the rest of Mark, with different word choices being used. This seems an impossible anachronism for Mormon to have included text hadn’t yet been added to the Gospel of Mark.

The Sacking of Jerusalem

This one isn't related to the KJV, but I'm including it because it is another impossibility. Most church members don’t know that Jerusalem was sacked twice: once in 597 BC and again in 587 BC. The first sacking included several years of war. Nebuchadnezzar started the invasion of Jerusalem in 601 BC—which included a 2-3 year (long and difficult) siege—finally broke through the walls in 597, and raided the city. The king was upset and sacked the city brutally. The king took most of the wealth and marched all the important people off to Babylon (at least 10,000 were taken, which probably represented a good part of the city). He bound Jehoiakim (the king) and paraded him in cities throughout Israel (finally throwing his corpse to dogs).

After this first sacking, Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as a puppet king over those that remained. The city was left in such ruin that the destruction inflicted on Hebrews in 601 BC (the lead up to the 597 capture) was said to fulfill the words of the prophets that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Referring to this first destruction, the Bible states that the destruction was so complete that "all Jerusalem" was deported with "none remaining except the poorest" (2 Kings 24). The Lord said that all the good figs (people) had been taken to Babylon, leaving only rotten, worthless figs behind (Ezek 4). Zedekiah reigns for 10 years, eventually rebels, and Nebuchadnezzar returns and burns the city in 587.

The Book of Mormon starts with Lehi preaching "in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah". This fact is given at least several other times in the BoM. Lehi definitely left after Jerusalem had been brutally raided in 597. He and his family lived through the terror.

Yet read the first few chapters of the BoM again and watch the tone. The brothers talk about the great city of Jerusalem -- how it could never fall. They have no interest in leaving the great city. "Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets" (1 Ne 2). Further, why wasn't Lehi (a rich man) carried off to Babylon with everyone else. Why wasn't Laban carried off?

It seems that Joseph was unaware of the two sackings of the city and he instead only knew (as many did in the 1800’s) about the final burning of the city. Amaleki says that "the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." This obviously refers to the 587 (final) sacking, which again shows Joseph compressing the two events into one sacking.

Egyptian is Verbose

Another language issue, although not specifically related to the KJV that you asked about, is that Egyptian is pretty verbose where Hebrew is more compact. Mormon 9 states that reformed Egyptian was used because scratching on the plates was so hard, and Egyptian was compact and easier to write.

Search the internet for "the most compact languages", and you’ll get Hebrew, among a few other languages like Chinese. Egyptian, on the other hand, contains numerous, complex characters that would be hard to etch on metal.

Then add to this that Joseph clearly believed that one character of Egyptian translated to a whole paragraph of English. This was a common belief at his time, and his Kirtland language translation documents clearly show that he held the belief.

 

[BigDaddy4]

So lets compare the Book of Mormon to the Quran:

Quran word count 77,449 time to write 23 years
Book of Mormon word count 273,725 time to write 65 days

That is a huge difference.

I wonder what the word count would be if the [plagiarized] KJV verses were subtracted....

 

[dzheremi]

Don't forget all the made up names plagiarized from various sources (the Bible itself, apocryphal texts, local places in JS' immediate environment with just a little tweak here or there to make them sound different and 'exotic' or 'Hebraic' or whatever). Those are fun, but probably shouldn't count towards the word count, since they're made up and/or stolen.

 

[BigDaddy4]

So maybe what, a couple hundred to a thousand original words?

 

[dzheremi]

I dunno...Mormons do tend to make a big deal out of their prophet being a simple farm boy, so maybe they could use that to push even harder for the 'miraculous' nature of the 'translation' that Joseph Smith supposedly did. "Only a couple hundred words came from Joseph! The rest were from 'God', which proves that he was a true prophet, and the church is true!"

 

[He is the way]

Oh, I'm sorry...I wasn't aware that the comparison I was making was about the number of words in each text or how long it took them to be 'revealed'.

Probably because the comparison I was making was not about the number of words in each text or how long it took them to be 'revealed'.

The comparison was none the less a comparison and it is like comparing peaches to tomatoes. It just does not work.

 

[He is the way]

The writings of Isaiah were stored on the Brass Plates in ancient Hebrew in 600 B.C. Isaiah 19:18 calls it the language of Canaan. Nephi took these to America and translated them to Reformed Egyptian on the Small Plates. Joseph translated these to English. So we have Ancient Hebrew -> Alternate Egyptian -> English.

Now consider another timeline, where those same Hebrew writings of Isaiah were translated to Jacobean English. Wikipedia says "For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.” This KJV Bible translation went through multiple languages and had many influences.

How could these two very different timelines have produced nearly identical scriptures? There are differences in the Bible and BoM Isaiah chapters, but the differences seem to be more because of Joseph's memory errors when dictating rather than from truly divergent history. I say this because the BoM contains words (like the italics, see below) and phrases that could only have come from the KJV.

So the question is not "did he copy the KJV", but "WHY did he copy the KJV?" There are faithful, mental gymnastic answers and straightforward, unfaithful answers.

The Italic Words

The italicized words in the KJV were added by the translators to make their translation more understandable. They were not part of the original Hebrew and Greek. In other words, they’re not found in any original source of the Bible, and they’re not found in non-KJV translations. It is impossible that these words could have been on the Brass Plates, which were written 2,000 years earlier. Royal Skousen (a faithful apologist) calculated that of the 392 italicized words in KJV Isaiah, 242 of the words, or 62 percent, are exactly included in the BoM.

Some have suggested that it was difficult to translate, so when he saw the same text on the Brass Plates, he used his Bible instead of retranslating. I accepted this explanation for much of my life. However, recent explanations of Joseph’s translation process, such as the official LDS essay, are clear on his process. He used his seer stone with his face in a hat. Consistent witnesses are clear that Joseph never had a Bible near him (he never had the Golden Plates near him, either).

One telling example is the Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi. It is an obvious copy of the KJV, but it contains changes such as using Nephite money instead of Hebrew money. It makes sense that Jesus would use the money of the Nephites. However, most other references to Hebrew/Roman culture are left intact: the word "Raca", going the extra mile and Roman law, sheep and herding, and many others. It seems like Joseph made an attempt to convert the KJV text to fit within the BoM, but he missed many references because he lacked the education to know which changes were needed.

Deutero-Isaiah Chapters

Most bible scholars agree that chapters 40-55 were written after Lehi left Jerusalem. Although Mormon scholars don't agree to this (because it would invalidate the BoM). Others have touched on this one, so I'll keep it brief.

If the scholars are right about Isaiah being written by 3+ different authors, it is impossible that the Brass Plates could have included these chapters of Isaiah. They were not created until well after Lehi’s family took the Brass Plates with them. Even if Joseph was copying from his KJV for an appropriate reason, these chapters still wouldn’t have been on the Brass Plates.

The Gospel of Mark

Mormon 9: 22-24 quotes the final verses in the Gospel of Mark. The quote is nearly word for word. However how could this quote have been made when that part of Mark was added by Christians around 500 A.D.? In all early manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark ends with Mark 16: 8. In later manuscripts, verses 9-19 are added. Different variations of the verses show up, but as time goes on, the current version becomes standardized.

Scholars are pretty consistent in saying these verses were added by later Christians and were not part of the book. The original Greek text for the verses is stylistically different than the rest of Mark, with different word choices being used. This seems an impossible anachronism for Mormon to have included text hadn’t yet been added to the Gospel of Mark.

The Sacking of Jerusalem

This one isn't related to the KJV, but I'm including it because it is another impossibility. Most church members don’t know that Jerusalem was sacked twice: once in 597 BC and again in 587 BC. The first sacking included several years of war. Nebuchadnezzar started the invasion of Jerusalem in 601 BC—which included a 2-3 year (long and difficult) siege—finally broke through the walls in 597, and raided the city. The king was upset and sacked the city brutally. The king took most of the wealth and marched all the important people off to Babylon (at least 10,000 were taken, which probably represented a good part of the city). He bound Jehoiakim (the king) and paraded him in cities throughout Israel (finally throwing his corpse to dogs).

After this first sacking, Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as a puppet king over those that remained. The city was left in such ruin that the destruction inflicted on Hebrews in 601 BC (the lead up to the 597 capture) was said to fulfill the words of the prophets that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Referring to this first destruction, the Bible states that the destruction was so complete that "all Jerusalem" was deported with "none remaining except the poorest" (2 Kings 24). The Lord said that all the good figs (people) had been taken to Babylon, leaving only rotten, worthless figs behind (Ezek 4). Zedekiah reigns for 10 years, eventually rebels, and Nebuchadnezzar returns and burns the city in 587.

The Book of Mormon starts with Lehi preaching "in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah". This fact is given at least several other times in the BoM. Lehi definitely left after Jerusalem had been brutally raided in 597. He and his family lived through the terror.

Yet read the first few chapters of the BoM again and watch the tone. The brothers talk about the great city of Jerusalem -- how it could never fall. They have no interest in leaving the great city. "Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets" (1 Ne 2). Further, why wasn't Lehi (a rich man) carried off to Babylon with everyone else. Why wasn't Laban carried off?

It seems that Joseph was unaware of the two sackings of the city and he instead only knew (as many did in the 1800’s) about the final burning of the city. Amaleki says that "the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." This obviously refers to the 587 (final) sacking, which again shows Joseph compressing the two events into one sacking.

Egyptian is Verbose

Another language issue, although not specifically related to the KJV that you asked about, is that Egyptian is pretty verbose where Hebrew is more compact. Mormon 9 states that reformed Egyptian was used because scratching on the plates was so hard, and Egyptian was compact and easier to write.

Search the internet for "the most compact languages", and you’ll get Hebrew, among a few other languages like Chinese. Egyptian, on the other hand, contains numerous, complex characters that would be hard to etch on metal.

Then add to this that Joseph clearly believed that one character of Egyptian translated to a whole paragraph of English. This was a common belief at his time, and his Kirtland language translation documents clearly show that he held the belief.

So Joseph Smith must have had a team of researchers in order to put together the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains 258,198 words that are not from passages found in the Bible. Of course if these researchers you refer to in your post had seen that the Book of Mormon differed from the Bible in these passages they would still have cried foul. Saying that Hebrew is more compact than reformed Egyptian is a laugh. Have they seen the reformed Egyptian? I also noticed that you copied your rebuttal from: Trying to explain the problem of the KJV errors found in the Book of Mormon to someone who is just starting the CES Letter... : exmormon
without giving them any credit. However I find it very superficial and not all that credible.

 

[He is the way]

I wonder what the word count would be if the [plagiarized] KJV verses were subtracted....

The answer is 258,198 words. And the rest of it was not plagiarized. I see that you really do not know much about the Book of Mormon.

 

[mmksparbud]

So Joseph Smith must have had a team of researchers in order to put together the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains 258,198 words that are not from passages found in the Bible. Of course if these researchers you refer to in your post had seen that the Book of Mormon differed from the Bible in these passages they would still have cried foul. Saying that Hebrew is more compact than reformed Egyptian is a laugh. Have they seen the reformed Egyptian? I also noticed that you copied your rebuttal from: Trying to explain the problem of the KJV errors found in the Book of Mormon to someone who is just starting the CES Letter... : exmormon
without giving them any credit. However I find it very superficial and not all that credible.

OOppps---I did forget to link my source
Trying to explain the problem of the KJV errors found in the Book of Mormon to someone who is just starting the CES Letter... : exmormon

And--oh, my, oh, my---I can't believe that you would find an ex-Mormon---"superficial and not all that credible!" I don't give much credit to ex-SDA's either!! Do Catholics consider ex-Catholics--credible?
Issues stated by "ex's" still have to be answered, be they SDA or Mormon.

 

[Rescued One]

Not all exes are unreliable or superficial!

 

[He is the way]

Not all exes are unreliable or superficial!

I didn't say they all were.

 

[mmksparbud]

I didn't say they all were.

Just because you do not like the ex's does not mean the issues brought up are unreliable! They are legitimate issues and will not go away if you ignore them.

 

[He is the way]

Just because you do not like the ex's does not mean the issues brought up are unreliable! They are legitimate issues and will not go away if you ignore them.

Just because you do not like the ex's does not mean the issues brought up are unreliable! They are legitimate issues and will not go away if you ignore them.

From your quote: "It makes sense that Jesus would use the money of the Nephites. However, most other references to Hebrew/Roman culture are left intact: the word "Raca", going the extra mile and Roman law, sheep and herding, and many others. It seems like Joseph made an attempt to convert the KJV text to fit within the BoM, but he missed many references because he lacked the education to know which changes were needed."

I do not believe those other changes to the references were needed.

And as far as translation errors see:
Book of Mormon/Translation Errors from the KJV - FairMormon

 

[He is the way]

Just because you do not like the ex's does not mean the issues brought up are unreliable! They are legitimate issues and will not go away if you ignore them.

From your quote: "Scholars are pretty consistent in saying these verses were added by later Christians and were not part of the book."

Relying on assumptions.