Tobin:
Again, this is a superficial criticism and rather insipid. The KJV is an ENGLISH translation of the Bible. It isn't in Hebrew and various words are anglicized. Also several Bibles used these words including Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 - so the notion it is grammatically wrong in the English of that period is preposterous.
Please provide the exact quotes where "these words" are used in those Bibles.
Also, you keep ignoring my question. Why should I believe your version of how the Book of Mormon came to be over David Whitmer's version? Are you familiar with David Whitmer's claims?
the only one of the witnesses that actually tried to translate was Oliver Cowdery. Instead, you dismiss a clear explanation of what may have been involved in the process and resort again to a simplistic view that Joseph Smith was a sock puppet which is laughable.
It's not my view, whether simplistic or not. This is what you don't seem to understand. I am a Joseph Smith critic. I am convinced beyond doubt that Joseph Smith was never a prophet for many reasons beyond what we are discussing here. But the same cannot be said about David Whitmer or Emma Smith - at least if you accept their testimonies, which
you do. (Or do you deny Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon?)
The "clear explanation" that you refer to (D & C 9) was not
given by Oliver Cowdery, but instead was allegedly given
for Oliver Cowdery by God through Joseph Smith. I have acknowledged the disparity of the two versions and explained why they fit nicely with a skeptical view of this. Skousen - a believer in Joseph Smith, who I referred to earlier, has written an article on this
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=182that you might find interesting.
Here is one of Skousen's observations
Witnesses of the translation process make two kinds of claims. First of all, they provide valuable evidence of what they actually saw taking place. Generally speaking, their actual observations are consistent with the physical evidence in the original manuscript. On the other hand, these witnesses frequently made claims about matters that they themselves could not observe. For instance, some described what they believed Joseph Smith actually saw in the interpreters; and many claimed that Joseph Smith could not go on until the scribe had written down letter-for-letter what Joseph saw. It turns out that these kinds of claims are not supported by the original manuscript. Of course, the witnesses themselves did not see what Joseph saw. Here they were either offering their own conjecture or perhaps recalling what Joseph might have told them. Nonetheless, all seemed to believe that Joseph Smith actually saw words in English, and there is evidence in the original manuscript to support this idea.
The fact that Whitmer's claims aren't consistent with the Book of Mormon production method you wish to promote in this thread does not work against a skeptical view of both Whitmer and Smith and Oliver. But it does pose a problem for those who wish to believe all of them.
Skousen - a believer - notes that:
For instance, some described what they believed Joseph Smith actually saw in the interpreters; and many claimed that Joseph Smith could not go on until the scribe had written down letter-for-letter what Joseph saw. It turns out that these kinds of claims are not supported by the original manuscript.
That "these kinds of claims are not supported by the original manuscript" is not a problem for the skeptic. It's a problem for the believer. The problem is compounded by the way in which these witnesses state their respective claims. They give no indication that "this is just my conjecture" or "this is what Joseph told me." Instead they make their claims as though it is the indisputable truth on the basis that they were there to witness the whole thing.
Skousen is correct to note that "many claimed that Joseph Smith could not go on until the scribe had written down letter-for-letter what Joseph saw." This, of course, is what is seriously problematic for your point of view. This is the opposite of what D & C 9 claims. This is what you equate with Joseph being a mere sock puppet and label ridiculous, as though doing so somehow challenges my point of view. Whether Joseph was a sock puppet or not, you're not challenging my point of view in so ridiculing, you're ridiculing the very people you choose to believe in other circumstances. It is they who make the claims you ridicule, not me. They were the ones who were there, not me. Not you. I don't believe them in either case (when they claim to know how Joseph translated or when they tell me they saw and held the plates) you want to believe them when it's expedient to do so and reject them when it isn't.
Nevertheless, you seem to prefer the D & C 9 version, (or what Skousen calls a loose translation) presumably because it allows you to better explain inconsistencies and poor grammar that are not easily attributed to God. Your version has Joseph playing a much more active role in the translation. But, as I've pointed out, that is a double-edged sword, because it also moves you dangerously close to my own skeptical point of view. The more you attribute the text to Joseph Smith as opposed to God, the more I agree with you and the less you agree with early Mormons.
So once again, why should I believe
your version of how the Book of Mormon came to be over David Whitmer's version? You were not there. David was. Can you answer that?
If the answer is merely an appeal to D & C 9, then how do you explain the discrepancies between the two versions? How do you explain Whitmer's version and other early Mormon witnesses who, as Skousen says, make iron-clad claims about God even checking spelling before the translation could move on?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.