FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon: Difference between revisions
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{CollapseHeaders | |||
| title = ===Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?=== | |||
| state = closed | |||
| content = | |||
====The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow ==== | ====The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow ==== | ||
What ''is'' a translation error?<ref>The ''CES Letter'', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."</ref> For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as ''queen'' when, it means ''king''. The word for ''queen'' in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to. | What ''is'' a translation error?<ref>The ''CES Letter'', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."</ref> For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as ''queen'' when, it means ''king''. The word for ''queen'' in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to. | ||
| Line 217: | Line 220: | ||
In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below. | In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below. | ||
Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.<ref name="larson">Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches|pages=15-63}}</ref><ref name="wrightjosephint"> | Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.<ref name="larson">Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches|pages=15-63}}</ref><ref name="wrightjosephint">David P. Wright, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smiths-interpretation-of-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon],” ‘’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’’ 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 187.</ref><ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in {{CriticalWork:Vogel Metcalfe:American Apocrypha|pages=157-234}}.</ref><ref name="runnells1769">Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/}}</ref><ref name="wikiold">This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors].</ref><ref>"Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, {{antilink|https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors}}.</ref><ref name="ankerberg">John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).</ref><ref name="alcase">Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, {{antilink|https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.}}</ref><ref name="brown">M. D. Brown, ''One Hundred Similarities Between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript'' (M. D. Brown, 1937), 24.</ref><ref name="snowden">James H. Snowden, ''The Truth About Mormonism'' (George H. Doran Company, 1926), 105, 106–7</ref> | ||
This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.<ref>This line was written 11 December 2022.</ref> This table includes 91 items.<ref>Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.</ref> | This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.<ref>This line was written 11 December 2022.</ref> This table includes 91 items.<ref>Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.</ref> | ||
| Line 310: | Line 313: | ||
But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-9.htm nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses] rejects using "not" after "boweth down." The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha]. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/93 has this verse rendered as] "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|108}} This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his ''Analysis of Textual Variants''.<ref name="skousenvariants">Royal Skousen, [https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ ''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: | But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-9.htm nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses] rejects using "not" after "boweth down." The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha]. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/93 has this verse rendered as] "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|108}} This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his ''Analysis of Textual Variants''.<ref name="skousenvariants">Royal Skousen, [https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ ''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014).</ref>{{Rp|656–60}} Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors. | ||
But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the ''idols''. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God. | But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the ''idols''. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God. | ||
| Line 387: | Line 390: | ||
||Defence | ||Defence | ||
||"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a '''defence'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/4-5.htm Bible Hub]) | ||"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a '''defence'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/4-5.htm Bible Hub]) | ||
||Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy."<ref name="ankerberg" />{{Rp| 322.}} | ||Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy."<ref name="ankerberg" />{{Rp| 322.}} True, "canopy" [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-5.htm is in most popular English biblical translations]. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per ''BDB'', or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament''). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."<ref name="boylankjv">Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Errors in the Book of Mormon?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', October 8, 2015, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/kjv-errors-in-book-of-mormon.html?q=translation+errors.</ref> | ||
| Line 462: | Line 465: | ||
Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but [[Virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon|we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki]]. | Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but [[Virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon|we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki]]. | ||
The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.<ref>Jason R. Combs, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-prophecies-old-testament/king-ahazs-sign-christ-jesus From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of | The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.<ref>Jason R. Combs, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-prophecies-old-testament/king-ahazs-sign-christ-jesus From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of Isaiah 7:14]," in ''Prophets & Prophecies of the Old Testament'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 95-122; {{Interpreter:Parry:An Approach To Isaiah Studies:2020}}; Garrett Kell, "[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/ Is Jesus Really the Virgin–Born Child] in {{s||Isaiah|7|}}?" ''The Gospel Coalition'', May 9, 2020, .</ref> | ||
Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (''ʿalmah''), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. {{s||Gen|24|43}}). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.<ref>''NET Bible'' | Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (''ʿalmah''), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. {{s||Gen|24|43}}). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.<ref>''NET Bible'', [https://netbible.org/bible/Isaiah+7 Isaiah 7, footnote 25].</ref> There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues. | ||
It should be remembered that one of the reasons that {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and {{s|2|Nephi|7|14}} retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary ({{s|1|Nephi|11|13}}, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah]]. | It should be remembered that one of the reasons that {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and {{s|2|Nephi|7|14}} retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary ({{s|1|Nephi|11|13}}, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah]]. | ||
Revision as of 17:00, 10 December 2025
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon
Summary: The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.
Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the CES Letter, asks "[w]hat are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"[1]
Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask "if the Book of Mormon is ‘the most correct book of any on earth,’ why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?"[2]
There are four questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:
- Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?
- Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV? We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
- Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways? Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches a person would get closer to God and his nature than by reading any other book.
- If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?
Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #38: What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters? (Video)
First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation.
Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769
As a corrective to the CES Letter, the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.
The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can read the 1611 edition online and see for themselves.
The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.
A slow drift in the argument. Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case.
The authors on whom the CES Letter seems to rely did not claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of italics in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."[3]:p.130
This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.[4]
KJV as a base text? Stan Spencer writes:
[a]lthough the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.[5]:49
The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible.[5]:47n5 The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible is available online and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation.
The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)
Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:
The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.[5]:47–48
| Related article: | Academic use of base texts for new translation Summary: See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the important differences between their text and well-known versions. |
Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism
Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is not plagiarism. At most, all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not plagiarizing it.
As far as material from Micah is concerned, this is a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of God's message in Micah 4꞉12-13 and 8-14. (3 Nephi 16꞉14-15; 20꞉16-20; 21꞉12[6] Mormon uses Micah 5꞉8 similarly in Mormon 5꞉24.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.
John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the mount.[7]
Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text
Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.
| Related article: | Timeline of the Book of Mormon translation and publications Summary: Our current Book of Mormon was translated from 7 April to the end of June 1829. |
Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith
A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[8] One verse (2 Nephi 12꞉16) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.[9] John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.[10] BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of Isaiah 2꞉2, as contained in 2 Nephi 12꞉2, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."[11]
These factors throw a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of KJV Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously possible that he did, but highly unlikely.
Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted
The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.[12]
| Related article: | All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process Summary: This page collects all first- and second-hand descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and groups them by theme (e.g., weight of the plates, use of seer stone, etc.) |
Stan Spencer observed,
[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.[5]:59
Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and some are specifically clear that he did not have any book or manuscript to which he referred.[13]
Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV
Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.[14]
Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)
When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but through divine revelation from God rather than out in the open on the table.[15]
Plagiarism is implausible #7—Archaic vocabulary
Evidence Central, Evidence #361: Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary (Article)
Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only after the translation was finished
We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.[17]
Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.[18] Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).[19] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?
Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations
As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12꞉2: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV."[20] This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes are indeed (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.[5]:50n11 But many others aren't. We can actually show that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding (1 Nephi 19꞉23). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.
Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,[21] has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name Coriantumr spelled with mr and not an mer as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim and that he could spell them out exactly to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.
Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation
Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."[5]:88
Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant
Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls, a far more basic fact than the meaning of italics. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact, how likely is it that he knew the Bible well enough to plagiarize it, much less repeat that plagiarism from memory?
Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that
I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.[22]
| Related article: | What did Joseph know about the italics in the KJV? Summary: How aware was Joseph about what the italics in the Book of Mormon meant? |
Plagiarism is implausible #12—No evidence Joseph's memory would allow the feat critics require
Evidence Central, Evidence #1: Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education (Article)
- There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an eidetic (or "photographic") memory.
- There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.
| Related article: | Plagiarism from King James Bible? Summary: This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text. |
Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?
The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow
What is a translation error?[26] For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as queen when, it means king. The word for queen in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to.
We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not need to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.
For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same set of arbitrary decisions and subsequent popularization.
Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.
This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.
We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text
We should also note that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the earliest known copies of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least mildly suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have copies of the manuscripts and they may reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. There's good reason to doubt it including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts don't accurately reproduce the original text.[27]
On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we simply can't know whether it does. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it in this broader sense.
This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.[28]
We often forget that there are typically three layers we must identify to understand a written text:
- what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
- what is actually written, and
- our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.
Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.
With a translated text there is a fourth layer to identify and untangle from the other three:
- 4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the translator thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.
Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author of the text understood them.
Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demand some humility on our part.
The most that we can say is that based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship, some of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.
With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proven facts.
The "Translation Errors"
Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."[25]:220
Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."[25]:214 Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.
Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.
Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.
| Main article: | The New Testament and the Book of Mormon |
In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.
Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."[25]:214 The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.[3][29][23][24][30][31][32][33][34][35]
This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.[36] This table includes 91 items.[37]
As a reminder, this table contains links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible, as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com, in order to refute the contention of the CES Letter that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.
We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors." The table below includes the location of the errors in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider adopting a similar approach to the one taken by the author of this article to resolve their concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at this link.
Summary of conclusions
For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:
- Some cases aren't errors.
- Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
- In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the diachronic nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue." They meant to refer to something like power and we mean to refer to something like strength in doing moral good or sometimes chastity.
- In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with Isaiah 6꞉2 and 6꞉6 (and corresponding passages in 2 Nephi 16꞉2 and 16꞉6 in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple seraph(s). The problem is that the suffix -im in Hebrew already pluralizes the word seraph. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
- In some cases, the errors are merely translation variants (rather than errors) where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
- In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be too broad or general rather than necessarily erroneous. It’s like saying that "king" refers to royalty. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
- In some cases, the translation errors are legitimately errors. These errors thus change the meaning of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall intent of the passages.
- In some cases, the errors actually do lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding.
- In some cases, the "errors" are not errors and are better explained as a translator's gloss where the translation is not necessarily accurate as to what a word from the target language referred to but do help make explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly from use of a particular word.
- In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.
In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise compels a reader into believing something false.
Click "expand" below to view the entire table.
{
Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?
The Lord Speaks "After the Manner of their Language"
All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?
The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."[38]
We have some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. The Lord speaks to his servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants (Doctrine & Covenants 1꞉24). That same idea is confirmed in 2 Nephi 31꞉3. He can even use error for his own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation." The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to u—the Lord accommodates his perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.
Joseph Smith quoted from Malachi 4꞉5-6 in Doctrine and Covenants 128꞉17-18. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."[39] Joseph here is content with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% exact in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.
The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a loose translation versus tight translation.)
The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation. Here is something interesting that Brigham Young taught:
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[40]
Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. Latter-day Saints have never been scriptural inerrantists. It is the message and the messenger that matter, not the precise words.
Notes
- ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 (emphasis added).
- ↑ Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 10, 83. ( Index of claims ); Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 205. ( Index of claims ); La Roy Sunderland, "Mormonism," Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 7 (17 February 1838) off-site
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1993), 15-63.
- ↑ Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the CES Letter. In editions past 2013, he links to an old version of a Wikipedia page (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson.
A similar argument to Runnells' is made in Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 10. ( Index of claims ). Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, separately, that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV italics is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition.
Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation variations (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors?
Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the 1611 (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, as well as an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his CES Letter hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the CES Letter at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors unique to only that edition present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" CES Letter, accessed 22 December 2022, https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2 - ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
- ↑ For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon," in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.
- ↑ John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125–50.
- ↑ See Michael Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196. (Key source)
- ↑ The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link. For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.; Royal Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.
- ↑ John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon," The FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
- ↑ Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17/7 (23 October 2015). [151–158] link
- ↑ John W. Welch, "Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
- ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
- ↑ "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, .
- ↑ Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subsequent half a century of investigation. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God=," Ensign 7/9 (September 1977). off-site.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, "The Original Text of the Book of Mormon and its Publication by Yale University Press," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/3 (27 September 2013). [57–96] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Look at Some 'Nonstandard' Book of Mormon Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11/6 (15 August 2014). [209–262] link; Stanford Carmack, "What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13/9 (26 December 2014). [175–218] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14/8 (27 February 2015). [119–186] link; Stanford Carmack, "Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster's 1828)," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/7 (1 May 2015). [65–78] link; Stanford Carmack, "The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/6 (1 January 2016). [41–64] link; Stanford Carmack, "Joseph Smith Read the Words," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/5 (1 January 2016). [33–40] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Case of the -th Plural in the Earliest Text," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/1 (2016). [79–108] link; Stanford Carmack, "How Joseph Smith's Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25/11 (9 June 2017). [239–260] link; Stanford Carmack, "Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27/11 (17 November 2017). [185–196] link; Stanford Carmack, "Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28/11 (16 March 2018). [177–232] link; Stanford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36/1 (7 February 2020). [1–28] link; Stanford Carmack, "Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/2 (12 November 2021). [5–36] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Book of Mormon's Complex Finite Cause Syntax," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/5 (26 November 2021). [113–136] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Comparison of the Book of Mormon's Subordinate That Usage," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50/1 (7 January 2022). [1–32] link; "The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Parts 3-4 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).
- ↑ John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100. ISBN 0252060121.
- ↑ Robert J. Matthews, A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 51–120. off-site
- ↑ See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon
- ↑ Royal Skousen, "How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [22–31] link
- ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 157-234..
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).
- ↑ The CES Letter, for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."
- ↑ "History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; 1 Nephi 13꞉28; see 23-29. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "translate."
- ↑ David P. Wright, “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” ‘’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’’ 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 187.
- ↑ This old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors.
- ↑ "Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors.
- ↑ John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).
- ↑ Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.
- ↑ M. D. Brown, One Hundred Similarities Between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript (M. D. Brown, 1937), 24.
- ↑ James H. Snowden, The Truth About Mormonism (George H. Doran Company, 1926), 105, 106–7
- ↑ This line was written 11 December 2022.
- ↑ Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.
- ↑ Joseph Smith, (July 1838) Elders Journal 1:42-43.
- ↑ Complete article and citation can be read here
- ↑ JD 9:311. .wiki.