DiscussMormonism.com

Here are the time-lines as I understand them (someone please correct me if these dates are wrong):
* The golden plates covered a time period beginning about 600 B.C. and concluding about 421 A.D..
* The King James Version Bible was first published in 1611 A.D..
* The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 A.D..

Based on the above time-line assumptions, the Book of Mormon contents were recorded in the golden plates before the KJV Bible was published. Then the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates and published after the KJV Bible.

According to the witnesses, every word of the Book of Mormon was divinely translated by Joseph Smith Jr. using the Urim and Thummim which accompanied the golden plates.

Take a look at an example verse in the Book of Mormon and in the KJV Bible (underline added for comparison):

Book of Mormon - 3 Nephi 24:10

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house; and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

KJV Bible - Malachi 3:10

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

NOTE: As noted in the preface of the King James Version, the italicized words were not in the original languages but were added by the King James translators to provide clarity. These italicized words throughout the Bible were entered in italics type style to denote that they were not in the original.

Question: How can the Book of Mormon (written far, far before the King James Version) contain the King James translators' inserted clarifying words (those found in italics)?

Perhaps there is reason to believe that the committee that wrote the KJV Bible had access to the golden plates through transmatic usage of the Committee Stone.

At this very moment that Daniel Peterson read the Old Testament, he taps the play button on his Zune to play one of his favorite Janice Capp Perry songs, "...with God Nothing Is Implausible".

Maybe because leaving out clarifying words would have made the Book of Mormon less accurate like it would have the KJV.

You might want to try to understand how translation works. A word for word translation always makes little to no sense. Try babelfish sometime and see.

The Nehor wrote:Maybe because leaving out clarifying words would have made the Book of Mormon less accurate like it would have the KJV.

According to the witnesses that were present during the translation process from the golden plates to the Book of Mormon, Joseph sat with his face buried in his hat with the stone in it and dictated with nothing else.

How did Joseph Smith get these clarifying words if he was translating directly from the golden plates that were recorded much before the KJV translators were even alive? Also, why do these clarifying words match the KJV translators' clarifying words word for word?

The Nehor wrote:Maybe because leaving out clarifying words would have made the Book of Mormon less accurate like it would have the KJV.

You might want to try to understand how translation works. A word for word translation always makes little to no sense. Try babelfish sometime and see.

Are you suggesting that the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was loose where in Joseph was allowed to put in his own words for clarity?

scripturesearcher wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Maybe because leaving out clarifying words would have made the Book of Mormon less accurate like it would have the KJV.

According to the witnesses that were present during the translation process from the golden plates to the Book of Mormon, Joseph sat with his face buried in his hat with the stone in it and dictated with nothing else.

How did Joseph Smith get these clarifying words if he was translating directly from the golden plates that were recorded much before the KJV translators were even alive? Also, why do these clarifying words match the KJV translators' clarifying words word for word?

Well God could have given him the clarifying words. If he did, to decrease confusion he would probably follow the standard biblical text of the day unless there was a change needed (such as in many parts of Isaiah).

Mad Viking wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Maybe because leaving out clarifying words would have made the Book of Mormon less accurate like it would have the KJV.

You might want to try to understand how translation works. A word for word translation always makes little to no sense. Try babelfish sometime and see.

Are you suggesting that the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was loose where in Joseph was allowed to put in his own words for clarity?

No

The Nehor wrote:Well God could have given him the clarifying words. If he did, to decrease confusion he would probably follow the standard biblical text of the day unless there was a change needed (such as in many parts of Isaiah).

I assume you are referring to other examples of the italics in the KJV Bible found in Isaiah:
Compare Book of Mormon Mosiah Chapter 14 with KJV Bible Isaiah Chapter 53.
This whole chapter in Mosiah is quoting from Isaiah and is near word for word (underline added for comparison):

Book of Mormon Mosiah Chapter 14
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no evil, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

KJV Bible Isaiah Chapter 53
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

There is a note at the beginning of my Bible in a foot note that says:
"Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic."

The problem is the clarifying words (in italics) are from man, not from God.

If you look at these italic words, they really do make the verse more readable but are not in any way part of the original text given to us by God. God does not make mistakes and would not need to clarify anything later.

There are also examples of verses found in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible where the italic words are dropped from the Book of Mormon. So it would appear that God was not following the standard biblical text of the day.

If God felt the need to add these clarifying words, then why didn't he add them into the original biblical texts of Malachi and Isaiah?
Since the King James Version Bible was published before the Book of Mormon was "translated", doesn't it seem more likely that the italic words from the King James Version Bible are found in the Book of Mormon and are there word for word because Joseph Smith copied them directly from the King James Version Bible?

Joseph Smith never discussed the details of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Speaking to a group of elders in 1831 he said that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." In his 1842 letter to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, sketching "the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints," Joseph stated only that he translated the record "by the gift and power of God." So we're left to guess at what actually took place.

Obviously the Book of Mormon contains KJV wording. I don't think anyone disputes that. Personally, I think Joseph did have a Bible on hand during at least some portions of the translation--either that or he had an extraordinary memory--because there are several clear cases of direct dependence on the KJV.

But I don't find the presence of KJV language in the Book of Mormon especially troubling because I think the Book of Mormon was as much a product of Joseph Smith as it was of God. And Joseph Smith's mind, as his earliest writings clearly show, "was steeped in the words and rhythms of the Authorized Version."

I like LDS philosopher Blake Ostler's definition of revelation as "a synthesis of human creativity responding to divine persuasion." This view rests on two fundamental premises: "(1) There can be no revelation without human experience and, (2) there can be no human experience without interpretation." Thus, Ostler continues,

Revelation is part human experience, part divine disclosure, part novelty. It requires human thought and creativity in response to the divine lure and message . . . .

The ultimate reality in Mormon thought is not an omnipotent God coercing passive and powerless prophets to see his point of view. God acts upon the individual and imparts his will and message, but receiving the message and internalizing it is partly up to the individual.

In this view, revelation is not an intrusion of the supernatural into the natural order. It is human participation with God in creating human experience itself. Revelation is not the filling of a mental void with divine content. It is the synthesis of a human and divine event. The prophet is an active participant in revelation, conceptualizing and verbalizing God's message in a framework of thought meaningful to the people.

Now I know this sort of thing goes against your inerrantist beliefs, but I think it was perfectly acceptable for Joseph Smith, acting in the role of prophet, to adapt and expand ancient scripture for a contemporary audience. New Testament writers did the same thing (see, for example, Paul's creative conflation of Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14 in 1 Cor. 15:54-55).