Book of Mormon and Bible - identical quotes...

[_LDS truthseeker]

I have heard some apologists argue that Joseph did at times resort to simply using the Bible instead of translating via the U&T. Joseph did this whenever he recognized something as similar to the Bible. Apparently the U&T hurt Joseph's eyes so when he found a few passages that he could get from the Bible, he did so.

Makes little sense to me that Joseph would choose to get 1% of the Book of Mormon from the 'not perfect' Bible and use the U&T for the other 99%.

I remember reading this apologetic as a believer and not thinking it was very reasonable. again it is not based on actual evidence, but is a necessary argument to get around a sticky problem for the Book of Mormon. Since the story would not be close to what the kJV says, how did he recognize it, and did God also tell him when to start copying it and when to stop. This of course does conflict with what they were trying to portray, which is that the Bible was never present during the translation.

Yeah, the more honest apologists admit the Bible was present and actually, obviously used somewhat in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

[_Buffalo]

[Matthew 6:27 in many versions of the greek Bible reads as follows: τις δε εξ υμων μεριμνων δυναται προσθειναι επι την ηλικιαν αυτου πηχυν ενα

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that it presents a false position and is done purely to deceive people. The KJV of the Bible most often favors a word-for-word translation while more modern versions of the Bible favor a meaning-for-meaning translation in which the greek is expressed in more appropriate english phrases. As is often the case with many non-mormon/anti-mormon arguments, they state something which is true such as the meaning-for-meaning expression in greek would not nowdays be translated as the KJV does, but they then turn that into a false position when they attack the Book of Mormon and KJV with it and state it is a mistranslation. It is not correct to state that the translation of the greek could not be expressed word-for-word translation as the KJV does. For example, if you look at the greek, the word "πηχυν" is a noun defined as the fore-arm or a cubit. And you can do this for all the greek words above and see that word-for-word, the KJV translation is reasonable. I would be highly critical of anyone, or source, that would state otherwise.

In answer to you Drifting: Yes, apparently Jesus used exactly the same words in both instances.

A good translation tries to express the meaning being conveyed in the original language. And, since Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, it's the meaning that's important.

Was there Greek text on the gold plates?

[_Tobin]

A good translation tries to express the meaning being conveyed in the original language. And, since Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, it's the meaning that's important. Was there Greek text on the gold plates?

Actually, a good translation would do both, but there usually isn't time or space for a discussion to provide the context to completely appreciate each phrase that is translated. A meaning-for-meaning translation in conveying meaning does so often at the expense of context, colloquialisms, symbolism, and other factors that make another language rich and interesting. A word-for-word translation, without a background in the language it is translated from, is often difficult to understand and that is why meaning-for-meaning translations are favored nowdays. It is done mostly for convenience and expediency. In fact, I would argue that is exaclty what the Mormon church should do to the Book of Mormon to make it more accessible (make it a meaning-for-meaning translation and remove the KJV style english). In its current state, the Book of Mormon is a very inaccessible book for the typical reader in the United States.

And no, the Book of Mormon was not originally written in Greek.

[_Buffalo]

A good translation tries to express the meaning being conveyed in the original language. And, since Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, it's the meaning that's important. Was there Greek text on the gold plates?

Actually, a good translation would do both, but there usually isn't time or space for a discussion to provide the context to completely appreciate each phrase that is translated. A meaning-for-meaning translation in conveying meaning does so often at the expense of context, colloquialisms, symbolism, and other factors that make another language rich and interesting. A word-for-word translation, without a background in the language it is translated from, is often difficult to understand and that is why meaning-for-meaning translations are favored nowdays. It is done mostly for convenience and expediency. In fact, I would argue that is exaclty what the Mormon church should do to the Book of Mormon to make it more accessible (make it a meaning-for-meaning translation and remove the KJV style english). In its current state, the Book of Mormon is a very inaccessible book for the typical reader in the United States.

And no, the Book of Mormon was not originally written in Greek.

A translation that fails to convey the original meaning is worse than useless. So why does the Book of Mormon contain bad KJV translations of ancient Greek texts?

[_Tobin]

A good translation tries to express the meaning being conveyed in the original language. And, since Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, it's the meaning that's important. Was there Greek text on the gold plates?

Actually, a good translation would do both, but there usually isn't time or space for a discussion to provide the context to completely appreciate each phrase that is translated. A meaning-for-meaning translation in conveying meaning does so often at the expense of context, colloquialisms, symbolism, and other factors that make another language rich and interesting. A word-for-word translation, without a background in the language it is translated from, is often difficult to understand and that is why meaning-for-meaning translations are favored nowdays. It is done mostly for convenience and expediency. In fact, I would argue that is exaclty what the Mormon church should do to the Book of Mormon to make it more accessible (make it a meaning-for-meaning translation and remove the KJV style english). In its current state, the Book of Mormon is a very inaccessible book for the typical reader in the United States.

And no, the Book of Mormon was not originally written in Greek.

A translation that fails to convey the original meaning is worse than useless. So why does the Book of Mormon contain bad KJV translations of ancient Greek texts?

It isn't a bad translation or a mistranslation as I've already explained despite your opinion otherwise. And all I've stated is that Jesus apparently used the same words in both instances.

[_Themis]

It isn't a bad translation or a mistranslation as I've already explained despite your opinion otherwise. And all I've stated is that Jesus apparently used the same words in both instances.

Jesus using the same words in both instances is not the problem. The problem is that there is really no realistic chance that the KJV has anywhere close to an accurate description of what Jesus said, regardless of translation errors. Where is the original text of this event? Did it even occur? There is not way you are going to get two events recorded by different groups to come out the same, or even close to the same. No original text exists. You can't even show that someone at the event wrote it down, and if one did, was it at that time or many years later. There are no good explanations for this that have the Book of Mormon coming out looking good.

[_Tobin]

It isn't a bad translation or a mistranslation as I've already explained despite your opinion otherwise. And all I've stated is that Jesus apparently used the same words in both instances.

Jesus using the same words in both instances is not the problem. The problem is that there is really no realistic chance that the KJV has anywhere close to an accurate description of what Jesus said, regardless of translation errors. Where is the original text of this event? Did it even occur? There is not way you are going to get two events recorded by different groups to come out the same, or even close to the same. No original text exists. You can't even show that someone at the event wrote it down, and if one did, was it at that time or many years later. There are no good explanations for this that have the Book of Mormon coming out looking good.

I can't help it if you don't believe in the Bible either. It is not my problem to solve.

[_Themis]

I can't help it if you don't believe in the Bible either. It is not my problem to solve.

I never said it was, but you also did not address some of the obvious problems I brought up.

[_Buffalo]

It isn't a bad translation or a mistranslation as I've already explained despite your opinion otherwise. And all I've stated is that Jesus apparently used the same words in both instances.

It's most certainly a bad translation. A translation that clumsily expresses an idiom devoid of its original meaning is a bad translation. And the fact that it shows up in 3 Nephi proves it was copied straight from the KVJ. Remember, Jesus didn't speak Greek.

[_Tobin]

I can't help it if you don't believe in the Bible either. It is not my problem to solve.

I never said it was, but you also did not address some of the obvious problems I brought up.

There is nothing to address. It is your opinion that Jesus did not say those exact words. If you can find another early original greek version that has different words, please let me know. Until then, it is just your opinion.