New official essay on Book of Mormon translation, they’re still lying.

[MG 2.0]

If you take God and angels out of the picture it would paint a pretty damning picture.

God and angels caused Joseph to pick up a KJV Bible, plagiarise it, verbatim, and pretend that it was written 1,000 years earlier than it was? Or God and angels revealed KJV Bible content (including syntax, fonts, and errors) on the stone in the hat and pretend that it was written 1,000 years earlier than it was? I’m not seeing a third option for how, specifically, it got into the Book of Mormon. So which one of those two is the version that you want to go with? I’m guessing you will avoid getting into specifics, and instead wave your hands in the air and just go with “Hey, it’s magic!”.

Not magic in the way you might mean.

The familiarity of Joseph’s contemporaries with King James English would have made their reading of the Book of Mormon an easier experience and one in which they could more readily accept the claims made by the book as both scripture and as an ancient record that was tied to biblical history. This would itself be part of the Lord’s promise that he would reveal his truth to humankind “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24), a prophecy given early on in the Church’s formation.

The specific phrase “manner of language” suggests that such transmission would occur not only in terms of the actual language but also in specific mannerisms that would be recognized by the audience in question. That it worked can be evidenced by how quickly the Book of Mormon became known as the “Golden Bible” or “Mormon Bible,” demonstrating a tacit understanding that, at the very least, the Book of Mormon sounded biblical. Thus the presence of King James English and even KJV passages in the Book of Mormon helped establish the book’s validity to people already familiar with the words of God via King James English. These passages also made it easier to recognize the truths found therein because of the text’s familiar cadence and sound.
--------------
That the biblical passages and surrounding texts are presented in KJV English reinforces these insights by harmonizing the biblical passages with their Book of Mormon interpretations. In so doing, the explicit biblical passages and the KJV English highlight the scriptural purpose of the Book of Mormon: “to show unto the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.”
---------------

Ultimately, the answer to the question as to how so much KJV Bible text got into the Book of Mormon is “We don’t know, yet we believe the book is true.”

Is this satisfying to critics? Probably not, and it is only fair that believers recognize how difficult it is to accept this answer. Yet perhaps the sincere critic can find solace in the answers to two related questions: why is KJV text and terminology found in the Book of Mormon, and is there internal consistency within the explicit biblical passages in the Book of Mormon? In answer to the first of these two questions, we know that within the context of Joseph Smith’s time, the use of King James English for religious purposes is neither unique nor strange but was common when one sought to establish tradition and authority to either the written or the spoken word.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/no-weapon-shall-pro ... -scripture

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

God and angels caused Joseph to pick up a KJV Bible, plagiarise it, verbatim, and pretend that it was written 1,000 years earlier than it was? Or God and angels revealed KJV Bible content (including syntax, fonts, and errors) on the stone in the hat and pretend that it was written 1,000 years earlier than it was? I’m not seeing a third option for how, specifically, it got into the Book of Mormon. So which one of those two is the version that you want to go with? I’m guessing you will avoid getting into specifics, and instead wave your hands in the air and just go with “Hey, it’s magic!”.

Not magic in the way you might mean.

The familiarity of Joseph’s contemporaries with King James English would have made their reading of the Book of Mormon an easier experience and one in which they could more readily accept the claims made by the book as both scripture and as an ancient record that was tied to biblical history. This would itself be part of the Lord’s promise that he would reveal his truth to humankind “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24), a prophecy given early on in the Church’s formation.

The specific phrase “manner of language” suggests that such transmission would occur not only in terms of the actual language but also in specific mannerisms that would be recognized by the audience in question. That it worked can be evidenced by how quickly the Book of Mormon became known as the “Golden Bible” or “Mormon Bible,” demonstrating a tacit understanding that, at the very least, the Book of Mormon sounded biblical. Thus the presence of King James English and even KJV passages in the Book of Mormon helped establish the book’s validity to people already familiar with the words of God via King James English. These passages also made it easier to recognize the truths found therein because of the text’s familiar cadence and sound.
--------------
That the biblical passages and surrounding texts are presented in KJV English reinforces these insights by harmonizing the biblical passages with their Book of Mormon interpretations. In so doing, the explicit biblical passages and the KJV English highlight the scriptural purpose of the Book of Mormon: “to show unto the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.”
---------------

Ultimately, the answer to the question as to how so much KJV Bible text got into the Book of Mormon is “We don’t know, yet we believe the book is true.”

Is this satisfying to critics? Probably not, and it is only fair that believers recognize how difficult it is to accept this answer. Yet perhaps the sincere critic can find solace in the answers to two related questions: why is KJV text and terminology found in the Book of Mormon, and is there internal consistency within the explicit biblical passages in the Book of Mormon? In answer to the first of these two questions, we know that within the context of Joseph Smith’s time, the use of King James English for religious purposes is neither unique nor strange but was common when one sought to establish tradition and authority to either the written or the spoken word.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/no-weapon-shall-pro ... -scripture

Regards,
MG

…the answer to the question as to how so much KJV Bible text got into the Book of Mormon is“We don’t know, yet we believe the book is true.”

Everyone knows how it got in there! It’s a verbatim copy. What this means is “We’ve got no faith promoting explanation for how the plagiarism got in there…so the best we can do is plead ignorance.”

Pathetic.

[MG 2.0]

Not magic in the way you might mean.

Regards,
MG

…the answer to the question as to how so much KJV Bible text got into the Book of Mormon is“We don’t know, yet we believe the book is true.”

Everyone knows how it got in there! It’s a verbatim copy. What this means is “We’ve got no faith promoting explanation for how the plagiarism got in there…so the best we can do is plead ignorance.”

Pathetic.

Says the critic.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Everyone knows how it got in there! It’s a verbatim copy. What this means is “We’ve got no faith promoting explanation for how the plagiarism got in there…so the best we can do is plead ignorance.”

Pathetic.

Says the critic.

Regards,
MG

Can you imagine a student who’d been asked by his Professor to explain why verbatim plagiarism was found in his essay, saying “I don’t know how it got in there”?

The KJV Bible content in the Book of Mormon (verbatim, including fonts used and errors made only in the 17th Century) is not just plagiarism. It’s blatantly obvious plagiarism. The Church has an explanation for how it got in there. Everyone knows how it got in there. But the Church cannot bring itself to grasp that nettle.

[Shulem]

And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged.

• Hyenas
• Towers
• Jackals

According to Book of Mormon format, prophet Nephi (2 Nephi 23:22) was said to have directly quoted Isaiah (Isaiah 13:22) from the Brass Plates. Here is the sequence that shows how exact wording from Isaiah were contained on the Brass Plates which later were copied into the Gold Plates:

And I did rehearse unto them the words of Isaiah...

I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet  Isaiah...

And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah.

And now, the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel...

And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of  Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.

And now I write  some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men.

The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

Now, with that said, we should expect Joseph Smith to CORRECTLY translate exactly what Nephi wrote which was exactly what Isaiah wrote. But such was not the case because Joseph Smith had no idea that certain words in Isaiah's KJV were an abomination or in more polite terms were mistranslations (beasts, islands, and dragons) of the original text (hyenas, towers, jackals). So, in effect, the KJV mistranslations were carried over into Smith's corrupt version of Isaiah and all that without his knowledge because he was translating by the power of the arm of flesh and a spirit of deception.

I so testify, in the name of Isaiah that apologetic excuses cannot excuse truth.

Mormons are liars.

Amen.

[Shulem]

If you take God and angels out of the picture it would paint a pretty damning picture. The fact is, if the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God the translation process would have been a revealed translation process. Before the translation process began in earnest Joseph didn't have a clue as to how to 'translate'. That process was given him from God in a tutoring process. That's what believers believe. You, of course, can continue to take God and angels out of the picture. By doing so you can find yourself in the 'right' where certain 'proofs' are not available.

Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth and yet you wink or wave your hand when it comes to mistranslations of Isaiah found therein. How hardly would Smith have knowingly allowed KJV mistranslations to have transferred into his own work. Smith was big on trying to get things right and declared: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Shortly after the Book of Mormon was published he went right to work on the new translation of the Bible and exerted his prowess in that work with the help of Adam Clarke and whoever else could lend him a fleshy hand.

How hardly would Smith have used the words "beasts, islands, and dragons" had he known that "hyenas, towers, and jackals" was an appropriate translation. Imagine how apologists would boast if Smith had gotten that right in showing his Book of Mormon translation aligned with the original Bible! You know how apologists tout Nephi's account of Isaiah in saying "And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures," as being a win for Smith's ability to translate a more complete version of the original account. But examples that show how Smith mistranslated by using the KJV with slight variation is waved off with the silly excuse that Smith's translation was a demonstration after the manner of the language in which Christians of his times were familiar with.

It's apologetic BS! It reminds me of how apologists say, "Look at the Four Sons of Horus" in the Facsimile, Joseph got it right!"

Never mind all the things Joseph got wrong.

YOU, MG, are a dishonest Mormon.

A liar.

[Shulem]

Ultimately, the answer to the question as to how so much KJV Bible text got into the Book of Mormon is “We don’t know, yet we believe the book is true.”

We know that KJV text from Isaiah was entirely placed into the covers of Smith's Book of Mormon with the exception of slight variations during the coarse of Smith's so-called miraculous translation process. Did that translation process take place while his face was buried in a hat or perhaps with an open copy of the KJV Bible conveniently placed upon a table next to Cowdery's pen and paper? I think it's reasonable to assume the latter. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that some apologists would insist that Smith translated/dictated the chapters of Isaiah without any assistance from an open Bible because God was speaking through him. If that is the case, then Mormon God is ignorant and has made a complete fool of himself in pretending to be all knowing. He does not impress me! He's a jackass!

Isn't that right, MG?

[Shulem]

why is KJV text and terminology found in the Book of Mormon . . . ?

Because Joe didn't know Greek or Hebrew! He didn't know jack other than the KJV and Bible commentaries available to him prior to dictating his imaginary stories!



For sure, we'd see some fancy word play in the Book of Mormon if Joe were familiar with Old Testament versions that are superior to that of the English KJV.



The Book of Mormon is a man-made book in its entirety.

[MG 2.0]

If you take God and angels out of the picture it would paint a pretty damning picture. The fact is, if the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God the translation process would have been a revealed translation process. Before the translation process began in earnest Joseph didn't have a clue as to how to 'translate'. That process was given him from God in a tutoring process. That's what believers believe. You, of course, can continue to take God and angels out of the picture. By doing so you can find yourself in the 'right' where certain 'proofs' are not available.

Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth and yet you wink or wave your hand when it comes to mistranslations of Isaiah found therein. How hardly would Smith have knowingly allowed KJV mistranslations to have transferred into his own work. Smith was big on trying to get things right and declared: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Shortly after the Book of Mormon was published he went right to work on the new translation of the Bible and exerted his prowess in that work with the help of Adam Clarke and whoever else could lend him a fleshy hand.

How hardly would Smith have used the words "beasts, islands, and dragons" had he known that "hyenas, towers, and jackals" was an appropriate translation. Imagine how apologists would boast if Smith had gotten that right in showing his Book of Mormon translation aligned with the original Bible! You know how apologists tout Nephi's account of Isaiah in saying "And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures," as being a win for Smith's ability to translate a more complete version of the original account. But examples that show how Smith mistranslated by using the KJV with slight variation is waved off with the silly excuse that Smith's translation was a demonstration after the manner of the language in which Christians of his times were familiar with.

It's apologetic BS! It reminds me of how apologists say, "Look at the Four Sons of Horus" in the Facsimile, Joseph got it right!"

Never mind all the things Joseph got wrong.

YOU, MG, are a dishonest Mormon.

A liar.

Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon aimed to make ancient texts accessible within the intellectual and linguistic framework known to early 19th-century readers, while also restoring lost or clarified meanings. As I've already said Joseph Smith's translation was not a typical linguistic translation but rather a revelatory process that produced English that would be familiar and understandable to early 19th-century readers, thus knowingly using KJV language as a framework while adding inspired clarifications or variants. In addition, Joseph Smith's translation text aligns with ancient biblical texts and includes Hebraisms unknown in his time. This acts as evidence against simple KJV plagiarism or careless copying.

In reference to your word usage concern the words "beasts, islands, and dragons" were part of the common biblical vocabulary passed down through the KJV tradition. If Smith had translated with a focus on conveying the exact ancient zoological or geographical referents (like "hyenas" or "jackals"), the text might have seemed foreign or obscure to his readers. Joseph was writing for our day. His audience was 19th century Bible readers and believers. In today's parlance and meaning of Biblical/Book of Mormon text most folks don't take issue with the "appropriate translation".

Folks like yourself do though! And you can get twisted in knots.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon aimed to make ancient texts accessible within the intellectual and linguistic framework known to early 19th-century readers, while also restoring lost or clarified meanings. As I've already said Joseph Smith's translation was not a typical linguistic translation but rather a revelatory process that produced English that would be familiar and understandable to early 19th-century readers, thus knowingly using KJV language as a framework while adding inspired clarifications or variants. In addition, Joseph Smith's translation text aligns with ancient biblical texts and includes Hebraisms unknown in his time. This acts as evidence against simple KJV plagiarism or careless copying.

In reference to your word usage concern the words "beasts, islands, and dragons" were part of the common biblical vocabulary passed down through the KJV tradition. If Smith had translated with a focus on conveying the exact ancient zoological or geographical referents (like "hyenas" or "jackals"), the text might have seemed foreign or obscure to his readers. Joseph was writing for our day. His audience was 19th century Bible readers and believers. In today's parlance and meaning of Biblical/Book of Mormon text most folks don't take issue with the "appropriate translation".

Oh look. The troll is once again posting AI generated content and pretending he wrote it. Why else would he post "Joseph was writing for our day", followed immediately by "his audience was 19th century Bible readers and believers"?

Was mg was born in the 1800s?