John Gee, Historian

[_EAllusion]

The strongest, if not exactly successful, apologetic response to the fact that the Book of Mormon relies so heavily on the KJV translation is that the Joseph Smith actively used it in instances where his attempts at translating the Book of Mormon mirrored his understanding of the Bible. This helps explain why the Book of Mormon retains translation errors from the KJV despite God directly revealing the text to Smith, for instance. Gee so thoroughly undercuts that apologetic response, that I can't even imagine how he conceptualizes why the Book of Mormon is so clearly dependent on the KJV translation. Does he bizarrely reject that dependency? Does he chalk it up to the mysteries of God?

[_Tobin]

The strongest, if not exactly successful, apologetic response to the fact that the Book of Mormon relies so heavily on the KJV translation is that the Joseph Smith actively used it in instances where his attempts at translating the Book of Mormon mirrored his understanding of the Bible. This helps explain why the Book of Mormon retains translation errors from the KJV despite God directly revealing the text to Smith, for instance. Gee so thoroughly undercuts that apologetic response, that I can't even imagine how he conceptualizes why the Book of Mormon is so clearly dependent on the KJV translation. Does he bizarrely reject that dependency? Does he chalk it up to the mysteries of God?

First, so what if Joseph Smith (or God) used the KJB? Big deal.

Second, what translation errors exactly? I see this assertion all the time, but I've yet to see anyone make the case the KJV has meaningful translation errors. Everything I've examined online is comical misdirection.

Third, Gee seems to be claiming that Joseph Smith didn't read or know the KJB. That is purely idiotic.

[_EAllusion]

http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

[_Tobin]

http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

So it is your opinion that connecting words, which are italicized in the KJV, that make the translation make sense in English are KJB mistakes. It is also your opinion that modern English meaning-for-meaning translations are more correct than the more archaic English word-for-word translations. Both arguments are complete non-sense. Got anything else?

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph Smith never read the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon, did not even own one, and was ignorant of it. He seems never to have read the apocrypha in his life.

http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-latest-anti-mormon-attack-on-book-of.html

Not having read the Bible all the way through is a different thing than not have studied the Bible. Is it possible that Gee is saying that Joseph had not read the Bible all the way through?

That may indeed be the case. See here:

http://mit.irr.org/files/did_young_jose ... _bible.pdf

Like many people, Joseph had not read through the Bible from cover to cover, but this does not
mean he had not studied large portions of it intensely; the evidence from his mother rather
suggests that he did...

Regards,
MG

[_Droopy]

Isn't about a third of the Book of Mormon direct plagiarism of the Bible. .. even plagiarized all the KJ English translation errors?

No.

[_Arrakis]

Isn't about a third of the Book of Mormon direct plagiarism of the Bible. .. even plagiarized all the KJ English translation errors?

No.

Isn't that like trying to argue whether a woman is a little bit pregnant? Regardless of the KJ % in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon definitely contains KJ translator errors.

[_Tobin]

Isn't that like trying to argue whether a woman is a little bit pregnant? Regardless of the KJ % in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon definitely contains KJ translator errors.

You have yet to demonstrate any "KJ translator errors".

[_Kishkumen]

The strongest, if not exactly successful, apologetic response to the fact that the Book of Mormon relies so heavily on the KJV translation is that the Joseph Smith actively used it in instances where his attempts at translating the Book of Mormon mirrored his understanding of the Bible. This helps explain why the Book of Mormon retains translation errors from the KJV despite God directly revealing the text to Smith, for instance. Gee so thoroughly undercuts that apologetic response, that I can't even imagine how he conceptualizes why the Book of Mormon is so clearly dependent on the KJV translation. Does he bizarrely reject that dependency? Does he chalk it up to the mysteries of God?

It is baffling. I agree.

[_Kishkumen]

Not having read the Bible all the way through is a different thing than not have studied the Bible. Is it possible that Gee is saying that Joseph had not read the Bible all the way through?

That may indeed be the case.

MG, it is pretty clear that Gee was at best exaggerating wildly regarding Smith's ignorance of the Bible.

In my view it looks more like he was playing fast and loose with the facts.

Why do you think he did not mention the 1832 account of the First Vision?

Was he simply ignorant of it?