I always appreciate references in the show notes, however, the Book of Mormon Central page linked in reference to 1 Nephi 22:15 does not talk about 1 Nephi 22:15, only the 3 Nephi quotes. Also it's a bit odd that both this video and most of the Book of Mormon Central links avoid the most troubling similarities between the Book of Mormon and KJV New Testament, when it is obviously a quote of someone just talking during the B.C. years (not through revelation, not Mormon, not Jesus, etc.) and it just happens to closely resemble the KJV verses of how Paul (not Jesus) is saying something. For example: 2 Nephi 4:17 --> Romans 7:24, 2 Nephi 4:18 --> Hebrews 12:1, 2 Nephi 9:39 --> Romans 8:6, Enos 1:1 --> Ephesians 6:4, Alma 61:9 --> Galatians 5:1, Helaman 3:29 --> Hebrews 4:12
God doesn't change but his people do. Is it necessary for us to be circumcised anymore? Are we no longer required to wear clothing made from one material? Do women have to wait to become ritually pure again after having their periods? God doesn't change but the information he gives us must be filtered (unfortunately) through imperfect people bound by the laws and customs of their society. At least in my opinion. I'm not an expert. In fact I'm the opposite of an expert, I'm an inpert? Is that a word?
Min 3:58 " personally i believe God revealed the KJV text EVEN WITH THE ERRORS as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose" ...WOW!!!! REALLY.????....so you really think God would quote a mistake or error rather than using His perfect word to avoid controversy and confusion.? Please Read 1 Corinthians 14:13 God is not a God of confusion.
Lol why? Because religious people always quote from their sacred texts to make their point. The Nephites were no different. They had a version of the Bible down to the time of Jeremiah scribed on the plates of brass and quoted that bible for the learning of their audience while giving an interpretation of its meaning through the Holy Spirit. Why do people give long talks in various churches? Why not just quote the bible and sit down? Because they feel moved upon to apply it to their listeners to increase their testimony about God.
@@seans5289 The one on the Plates of Brass. Hugh Nibley suspected it would have been closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than what became the modern Bible, but that is just speculation.
Nephi explains what's in the brass plates toward the end of 1 Ne 5. Since the plates were in the possession of Laban who was a descendant of Joseph in Egypt, and contained the genealogy of Lehi who was of the tribe of Manasseh, the plates were most likely a copy passed through Manasseh and Ephraim. They also contained writings from prophets not had in the writings handed down through the tribe of Judah such as the prophet Zenos. What we do know is that it certainly wasn't one of the 58+ versions of the bible that we have in English that all tell the same stories in radically different ways.
David literally just covered the reasons for that possibility. And no not all of it is word for word. 2 Nephi 12-24 covers Isaiah 2-14. 2 Nephi 12 which quotes Isaiah 2 gives us both the ships of the sea and the ships of Tarshish. KJV Isaiah 2 only gives us the ships of Tarshish. In fact only about 200 out of 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the same wording as the KJV. Not to mention the sermon at Temple in 3 Nephi 12-14 reads differently in some areas than the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7.
I am an "anti morman" and I was really impressed with that video. Well done. I didn't think it was possible to come up with a plausible explanation for why Paul's letters to the Corinthians appear verbatum - but you managed to prove me wrong. God gave devine inspiration to Moroni who happened to use the same devine words in his summary. God inspires Paul and Moroni to use the same words ... Well done. A good solid attempt to try to explain something that most critics have problems with. You have now got an explanation for everything that looks like plagerism. I guess if you believe in God (which I do) then it follows that almost anything is possible ...
Well hardly unique to the KJV, as many of the same variations were found in earlier English translations. Obviously the "Gift and Power of God" was familiar with preexisting translations.
This is a major dilemma within the text: The KJB interpolations are preserved in the 5th century AD Book of Mormon, 1100 years before it went to print. If Joseph did not copy directly from the KJB, then this has no explanation. It's most likely not all of the BoM text was translated without a supporting document. Joseph probably took liberties by copying the text of Isaiah in order to accelerate the completion of the book.
Have you checked out the sources from the video description? Jim Bennett in his response to the CES Letter tackles the subject in a very interesting manner as well.
3:52 “There’s no evidence that a Bible was present during the translation.” This video was three years ago, so maybe your view has shifted. The word-for-word replication of the KJV, errors and all, is its own evidence that a Bible was referenced. The descriptions of the translation process are snapshots in time, so the omission of a Bible being used isn’t surprising, especially considering that the vast majority of the BOM is new content, not replication of the Bible. This matters because the BOM, itself, attributes errors in the text to man. Your suggestion that God zapped the KJV to Joseph would put God’s endorsement on those errors, and this all becomes highly problematic when you start talking about translating the BOM into other languages. Edit to add: what exactly is the problem in a Bible being part of the process?
Because he is one of three that make up the Godhead, three separate entities (Heavenly Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) united in purpose. Much like a family united in the same end goal. Jesus is just as much divine as his father and the Holy Ghost.
@@logenvestfold4143 I have a copy of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, as well as the current issue. I assure you, the one JS wrote has a confused trinitarian God and not this “three in purpose” explanation that’s currently offered by members of the Church.
@@logenvestfold4143 so was God lying to Joseph when he was translating the book? When each word appeared on the rock in his hat, was God giving him the wrong word?
Not the Bibel, non the BoM teach the trinity the only one teach that Theorie was the Catholic Church long after Christ dead and since than all the Evangelics follow the Catholics
Min 3:58 " personally i believe God revealed the KJV text EVEN WITH THE ERRORS as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose" ...WOW!!!! REALLY.????....so you really think God would quote a mistake or error rather than using His perfect word to avoid controversy and confusion.? Please Read 1 Corinthians 14:13 God is not a God of confusion.
I see that this comment is over a year old, so idk if your opinion still stands. But I agree with you that God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Assuming this is actually the case that God kept in the errors, because we don't know it's just an opinion, it makes sense to keep the KJV text with the errors "as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose". If the KJV text was translated correctly then having two different versions of the same text, of which so many non Latter-Day Saint Christians believe in, would bring a lot more confusion as to why they would say two slightly different things. But again, just an opinion. This explanation could be wrong. At the end of the day, what matters is does the Book of Mormon actually testify of Jesus Christ or not? And I think it's clear that it does. And like David said, the Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible.
Major issue.. why does “god” use the English translations of Latin words words in the BoM that are the same words used in the KJB from 1769...? Scribes in the KJB messed up NOT translating the Greek word to English... ops Smith! The KJB was an attempt to bring the bible back to a Greek translation to English over the Catholic Latin which they took from the Greek and many meanings changed... that is the errors we speak of in the bible to the BoM... there should be NO Latin translated words in the BOM, they should have been Greek translations.... fail on Smith
I think it’s strange you mentioned Brigham young. He also said they you have to go through Joseph smith to have your sins forgiven to enter the kingdom of heaven....! Also you are also saying because it is Possible that Joseph smith didnt have a Bible with him at the time of his translation, it’s possible it wasn’t fraud what he wrote? A person doesn’t have to have a Bible with them to know what the scriptures are. I mean do you see every mechanic have directions with them making sure they don’t make a mistake??
To be honest, I have found much of the Book of Mormon just to be a retelling or re-imagining of various Biblical stories or tropes. Many of them very repetitive (i.e. many lines start with "it came to pass..." as you note). I think that there are verbatim passages from the KJV is somewhat evidence of this. I don't mean this to be negative (I like a lot of Mormon ideas, but just my honest thoughts). For all Smith's talk of dreams and visions, I don't believe the Book of Mormon is meant to be interpreted literally. Much like much of the Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525 True enough. Why I am not sure any of it is to be taken as historical fact. I mean even the person who comprises most of the New Testament only ever had visions of Jesus.
@Anti Anti Mormon Many of the people who saw the plates only ever saw them in dreams and visions. Joseph Smith had many such visions. If you take everything you see in a dream literally, we have a God who will send sheets full of animals to float down to us to kill and eat...Don't even get me started on the Biblical Joseph's dream interpretations of fat and skinny cows...
@Anti Anti Mormon And that is also a false dichotomy. There are other ways to interpret things. The Essenes for instance (as well as many Jews, like Philo, Maimonides, etc.) interpreted difficult or troubling passages allegorically (i.e. parts where God is alleged to have ordained genocide, war, sacrifice, etc.). The Ebionites believed there were false texts in the Old Testament. That God never ordained animal sacrifice (as per many writings attributed to the later prophets and Jesus himself) but this was a later insertion. This is evidenced further by modern textual analysis that points to the Pentateuch in particular as having many different authors and the Priestly sources likely being some of the latest. Which is part of the reason I am doubtful of the Book of Mormon. Most of the Priestly writings are said to be 4-5th Century BCE writings, but the Book of Mormon alleges to have a complete and unified Pentateuch prior to this time period. This is the theory I am most aligned with presently based on the evidence. There are also parable evidence and Jesus' own words. He repeatedly warned us against the scribes and chief priests. It is said he only ever spoke in parables. God speaks in dark sayings of old. The parable of the sower (who sows the word of God) and Satan who comes in the night to sow weeds (false texts ascribed to God). For the record I am not anti-Mormon. I think there is a lot of truth in the Book of Mormon. I mean it contains words ascribed to Jesus that are also in the Bible. Retelling of some of the later prophet's sayings, etc. Regardless of who spoke these words, I believe that speak truth.
@Anti Anti Mormon Appeared in what way? Why is there no other record of this if it is a literal event? What happened to the plates? This is similar to many Biblical events. I am not saying it's just Mormon theology but all theology seems to have very little in the way of definitive proof. Why I believe much of it is to be taken allegorically as Paul stated. Even as God and Jesus spoke in parables.
How did putting it into literally the exact words of the 1769 KJV version benefit people? It only caused more doubts. Only a blasphemer would accuse God of being a fool. Do you think God almighty would say "you know what would really help people? If I made Joseph look like a fraud and a false prophet. That will _really_ help my people"? Do you think God would do that? Obviously not. And besides IF THAT WAS WHAT HE DID, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SAID THESE ARE A TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT RECORDS! Joseph would have explained all of this when making it. But he never did. Instead he claimed that none of it was a copy of the Bible. Funny how the "inspired" Joseph Smith Translation is different to the copy of the sermon on the mount in the Book of Mormon. Surely if both are perfect and inspired, the book of Mormon should match the "inspired" Joseph Smith Translation. But it doesn't. It matched the erroneous KJV. Why would God _want_ to make a true prophet look like a fraud? To test us? Well surely our correct response would be to obey God? So what does he say we need to do to false prophets? Does he say follow them blindly? Does he say excuse their lies? Or does he say obedience to God means rejection of false prophets? Surely if this is a test, the correct response is for us to reject anyone who acts as a fraud. Hence we must obey God. Either Joseph is a fraud and we reject him for that. Or Joseph is sent to look like a fraud as a test. In which case, God wants us to obey God and reject Joseph Smith. Either way, God wants us to reject this charlatan.
You know why this doesn't concern me one bit? Because I've heard the same story about horses, cement, writing on plates, etc. and we've now found that ancient people did write on plates. Horse bones have been found. Cement structures have been found. So whether the word sheep comes from sheep actually being there, or from translation, I'm not too concerned about it! These arguments are nothing new. Book of Mormon is true bro 🔥
I said a similar thing to my BYU English professor after she questioned me about my paper on John Milton. I told her that the power of God revealed nearly the exact same phrases to both me in 2008 and to Dr. Susan B. Iwanisziw in 1998. Unfortunately, even when I told my professor that only 6.4% of my paper contained the uncited writings of other people [5:50], she still failed me in the course and reported me to the honor code office. I was just trying to follow the prophet.
Which errors do you mean? The more I have explored this topic the more I find less "errors" and more a range of possible interpretations. I have actually done some professional/academic translations. It is not nearly as straight forward a process as Google translate might suggest. Often there are multiple reasonable translations, all equally valid. It gets even worse with poetry/symbolic language. I know many modern Bible translations are focused on perceived 'accuracy' or 'readability' both of which can make symbolism less apparent. A perfect example in Arthurian Literature is Launcelot, who in the earliest texts is just a nickname for Galahad due to his expertise with the spear. Translators moving between French, German, English, and Welsh/Breton confused the two. In attempts to clarify and make the text easier to read, they became depicted as two different individuals. There are plenty of other examples were clarification significantly changes intended meaning. So with regards to the Book of Mormon, which the D&C says was given in the language and understanding of Joseph Smith, we need to look not only at word choice but context and meaning. A fact I wish David would have mentioned, is of the verses in common with the Bible, over fifty percent are rendered differently. It is a much more complicated subject than many critics admit.
@@brettmajeske3525 specifically errors from the 1769 version of the KJV. There are words and phrases that have been proven with further academic study to be verifiably wrong, which the KJV does correct in later editions of the Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525: I’m referring to specific words or phrases copied identically from mistranslations found in the exact copy of the Bible available to Joseph. Compare such identical mistranslations to something like Nahom/NHM. If the similarity between a Book of Mormon place name and an inscription in the general area of Lehi’s journey which was apparently unknown to anyone in 1830 could be used as evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon, wouldn’t identical mistranslations of phrases unknown to ancient writers be stronger and found only in 19th century source materials be evidence that methods other than seer stones were used?
@@BrendonKing So which study is that? I hope you are not referring to the CES Letter, as along with the section on local names it is the least accurate and unscholarly section. Rather than making an analysis of how phrases are translated over time with credible authorities views on specific examples. he points out single variations as 'proof'. If you check his citations they either do not say what he claims they say, or they refer back to something else he posted.
@@seans5289 Again I would be interested to know which specific mistranslation you mean? I have heard many people making claims such exist, without seeing a whole lot of actually evidence. Is there somewhere with side by side examples?
Joseph Smith was very good at coping from other sources, such as the scriptures that he took and put them in his books. Also, he copied the symbols and rituals from the Freemasons, they are in the temple ceremonies, all over the temple buildingsf. God is not the translator of your gospel, your gospel is contrary to the Bible. God would not translate against His own word. The Book of Mormon has never been proven or authenticated by historians or archeologists. The angel Mormon is not in the bible, he has never been found anywhere. No historical proof of this so called angel that you display on your temples rather than Jesus Christ or the cross. This is why you should never call yourselves Christians. You say you believe in Him but you deny Him.
This channel saved my life in a way
Hey! We would love to hear your story if you want to send us a message on Facebook or Instagram.
David you always knock these videos out of the park, well done
Wow! Your written notes in the video description are awesome! ❤
I always appreciate references in the show notes, however, the Book of Mormon Central page linked in reference to 1 Nephi 22:15 does not talk about 1 Nephi 22:15, only the 3 Nephi quotes.
Also it's a bit odd that both this video and most of the Book of Mormon Central links avoid the most troubling similarities between the Book of Mormon and KJV New Testament, when it is obviously a quote of someone just talking during the B.C. years (not through revelation, not Mormon, not Jesus, etc.) and it just happens to closely resemble the KJV verses of how Paul (not Jesus) is saying something. For example: 2 Nephi 4:17 --> Romans 7:24, 2 Nephi 4:18 --> Hebrews 12:1, 2 Nephi 9:39 --> Romans 8:6, Enos 1:1 --> Ephesians 6:4, Alma 61:9 --> Galatians 5:1, Helaman 3:29 --> Hebrews 4:12
great video, as always. really appreciate the work you guys do to candidly answer hard questions
Really great summary and perspective. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
This was so helpful thank you .
I would think if we believe God is the same yesterday, today and forever we would want scripture to match, right, just saying.
Agreed
But it doesn’t. There are significant doctrinal differences between both books. Other than that I would agree with your premise.
God doesn't change but his people do. Is it necessary for us to be circumcised anymore? Are we no longer required to wear clothing made from one material? Do women have to wait to become ritually pure again after having their periods? God doesn't change but the information he gives us must be filtered (unfortunately) through imperfect people bound by the laws and customs of their society. At least in my opinion. I'm not an expert. In fact I'm the opposite of an expert, I'm an inpert? Is that a word?
A large percentage of Mormons do not share your fundamentalist views and are perfectly happy
Min 3:58 " personally i believe God revealed the KJV text EVEN WITH THE ERRORS as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose" ...WOW!!!! REALLY.????....so you really think God would quote a mistake or error rather than using His perfect word to avoid controversy and confusion.? Please Read 1 Corinthians 14:13 God is not a God of confusion.
Fascinating and informative. Thank you for your content.
Lol why? Because religious people always quote from their sacred texts to make their point. The Nephites were no different. They had a version of the Bible down to the time of Jeremiah scribed on the plates of brass and quoted that bible for the learning of their audience while giving an interpretation of its meaning through the Holy Spirit. Why do people give long talks in various churches? Why not just quote the bible and sit down? Because they feel moved upon to apply it to their listeners to increase their testimony about God.
Which version of the Bible did the Nephites have?
@@seans5289 The one on the Plates of Brass. Hugh Nibley suspected it would have been closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than what became the modern Bible, but that is just speculation.
Nephi explains what's in the brass plates toward the end of 1 Ne 5. Since the plates were in the possession of Laban who was a descendant of Joseph in Egypt, and contained the genealogy of Lehi who was of the tribe of Manasseh, the plates were most likely a copy passed through Manasseh and Ephraim. They also contained writings from prophets not had in the writings handed down through the tribe of Judah such as the prophet Zenos. What we do know is that it certainly wasn't one of the 58+ versions of the bible that we have in English that all tell the same stories in radically different ways.
@@sumguyfromutah: Yet we have word-for word copies from the King James Bible.
David literally just covered the reasons for that possibility. And no not all of it is word for word. 2 Nephi 12-24 covers Isaiah 2-14. 2 Nephi 12 which quotes Isaiah 2 gives us both the ships of the sea and the ships of Tarshish. KJV Isaiah 2 only gives us the ships of Tarshish. In fact only about 200 out of 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the same wording as the KJV. Not to mention the sermon at Temple in 3 Nephi 12-14 reads differently in some areas than the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7.
I am an "anti morman" and I was really impressed with that video.
Well done.
I didn't think it was possible to come up with a plausible explanation for why Paul's letters to the Corinthians appear verbatum - but you managed to prove me wrong.
God gave devine inspiration to Moroni who happened to use the same devine words in his summary.
God inspires Paul and Moroni to use the same words ...
Well done.
A good solid attempt to try to explain something that most critics have problems with.
You have now got an explanation for everything that looks like plagerism.
I guess if you believe in God (which I do) then it follows that almost anything is possible ...
Forest days, it happens
Asked myself this earlier this week❤️❤️✨
Me too 😃
@@ChristianZiya twinsss✨😊
@@ChristianZiya are you LDS?
One problem, the BOM contains errors and mistranslations that are unique to the KJV and not in the original texts
Well hardly unique to the KJV, as many of the same variations were found in earlier English translations. Obviously the "Gift and Power of God" was familiar with preexisting translations.
That could have happened in the printers copy.
Have any of you ever been open to the Book of Mormon being false?
I have for years. I don't need to think it anymore because I know as much as I know the Bible is true that the Book of Mormon is also.
This is a major dilemma within the text: The KJB interpolations are preserved in the 5th century AD Book of Mormon, 1100 years before it went to print. If Joseph did not copy directly from the KJB, then this has no explanation. It's most likely not all of the BoM text was translated without a supporting document. Joseph probably took liberties by copying the text of Isaiah in order to accelerate the completion of the book.
Have you checked out the sources from the video description? Jim Bennett in his response to the CES Letter tackles the subject in a very interesting manner as well.
hey, you guys should do a video on 1 Corinthians 14:31-37!!!!
3:52 “There’s no evidence that a Bible was present during the translation.”
This video was three years ago, so maybe your view has shifted. The word-for-word replication of the KJV, errors and all, is its own evidence that a Bible was referenced.
The descriptions of the translation process are snapshots in time, so the omission of a Bible being used isn’t surprising, especially considering that the vast majority of the BOM is new content, not replication of the Bible.
This matters because the BOM, itself, attributes errors in the text to man. Your suggestion that God zapped the KJV to Joseph would put God’s endorsement on those errors, and this all becomes highly problematic when you start talking about translating the BOM into other languages.
Edit to add: what exactly is the problem in a Bible being part of the process?
Why is Jesus described of as God sooooo often in the BoM if the trinity is wrong?
Because he is one of three that make up the Godhead, three separate entities (Heavenly Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) united in purpose. Much like a family united in the same end goal. Jesus is just as much divine as his father and the Holy Ghost.
@@logenvestfold4143 I have a copy of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, as well as the current issue. I assure you, the one JS wrote has a confused trinitarian God and not this “three in purpose” explanation that’s currently offered by members of the Church.
@@BrendonKing the church in its infancy and there haven’t been further revelations as what would be seen later.
@@logenvestfold4143 so was God lying to Joseph when he was translating the book? When each word appeared on the rock in his hat, was God giving him the wrong word?
Not the Bibel, non the BoM teach the trinity the only one teach that Theorie was the Catholic Church long after Christ dead and since than all the Evangelics follow the Catholics
Check out the book Sapiens, which explains why religions and other myths actually exist in the first place
Can you elaborate more, please?
Min 3:58 " personally i believe God revealed the KJV text EVEN WITH THE ERRORS as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose" ...WOW!!!! REALLY.????....so you really think God would quote a mistake or error rather than using His perfect word to avoid controversy and confusion.? Please Read 1 Corinthians 14:13 God is not a God of confusion.
I see that this comment is over a year old, so idk if your opinion still stands. But I agree with you that God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Assuming this is actually the case that God kept in the errors, because we don't know it's just an opinion, it makes sense to keep the KJV text with the errors "as it was sufficiently plain to suit His purpose". If the KJV text was translated correctly then having two different versions of the same text, of which so many non Latter-Day Saint Christians believe in, would bring a lot more confusion as to why they would say two slightly different things. But again, just an opinion. This explanation could be wrong. At the end of the day, what matters is does the Book of Mormon actually testify of Jesus Christ or not? And I think it's clear that it does. And like David said, the Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible.
🤣🤣🤣 thank you, I needed the laughs.
Major issue.. why does “god” use the English translations of Latin words words in the BoM that are the same words used in the KJB from 1769...? Scribes in the KJB messed up NOT translating the Greek word to English... ops Smith!
The KJB was an attempt to bring the bible back to a Greek translation to English over the Catholic Latin which they took from the Greek and many meanings changed...
that is the errors we speak of in the bible to the BoM... there should be NO Latin translated words in the BOM, they should have been Greek translations.... fail on Smith
1:50
Waffle waffle and more waffle.
Excuses for things that don’t make sense. Like everything else that makes no sense.
I think it’s strange you mentioned Brigham young. He also said they you have to go through Joseph smith to have your sins forgiven to enter the kingdom of heaven....! Also you are also saying because it is Possible that Joseph smith didnt have a Bible with him at the time of his translation, it’s possible it wasn’t fraud what he wrote? A person doesn’t have to have a Bible with them to know what the scriptures are. I mean do you see every mechanic have directions with them making sure they don’t make a mistake??
But to quote verbatim as critics claim, some rather obscure passages from memory is more than general familarity.
To be honest, I have found much of the Book of Mormon just to be a retelling or re-imagining of various Biblical stories or tropes. Many of them very repetitive (i.e. many lines start with "it came to pass..." as you note). I think that there are verbatim passages from the KJV is somewhat evidence of this. I don't mean this to be negative (I like a lot of Mormon ideas, but just my honest thoughts). For all Smith's talk of dreams and visions, I don't believe the Book of Mormon is meant to be interpreted literally. Much like much of the Bible.
Well to be fair, most of the Bible is retelling the same tropes over and over again as well.
@@brettmajeske3525 True enough. Why I am not sure any of it is to be taken as historical fact. I mean even the person who comprises most of the New Testament only ever had visions of Jesus.
@Anti Anti Mormon Many of the people who saw the plates only ever saw them in dreams and visions. Joseph Smith had many such visions. If you take everything you see in a dream literally, we have a God who will send sheets full of animals to float down to us to kill and eat...Don't even get me started on the Biblical Joseph's dream interpretations of fat and skinny cows...
@Anti Anti Mormon And that is also a false dichotomy. There are other ways to interpret things. The Essenes for instance (as well as many Jews, like Philo, Maimonides, etc.) interpreted difficult or troubling passages allegorically (i.e. parts where God is alleged to have ordained genocide, war, sacrifice, etc.).
The Ebionites believed there were false texts in the Old Testament. That God never ordained animal sacrifice (as per many writings attributed to the later prophets and Jesus himself) but this was a later insertion. This is evidenced further by modern textual analysis that points to the Pentateuch in particular as having many different authors and the Priestly sources likely being some of the latest. Which is part of the reason I am doubtful of the Book of Mormon. Most of the Priestly writings are said to be 4-5th Century BCE writings, but the Book of Mormon alleges to have a complete and unified Pentateuch prior to this time period. This is the theory I am most aligned with presently based on the evidence.
There are also parable evidence and Jesus' own words. He repeatedly warned us against the scribes and chief priests. It is said he only ever spoke in parables. God speaks in dark sayings of old. The parable of the sower (who sows the word of God) and Satan who comes in the night to sow weeds (false texts ascribed to God).
For the record I am not anti-Mormon. I think there is a lot of truth in the Book of Mormon. I mean it contains words ascribed to Jesus that are also in the Bible. Retelling of some of the later prophet's sayings, etc. Regardless of who spoke these words, I believe that speak truth.
@Anti Anti Mormon Appeared in what way? Why is there no other record of this if it is a literal event? What happened to the plates? This is similar to many Biblical events. I am not saying it's just Mormon theology but all theology seems to have very little in the way of definitive proof. Why I believe much of it is to be taken allegorically as Paul stated. Even as God and Jesus spoke in parables.
How did putting it into literally the exact words of the 1769 KJV version benefit people? It only caused more doubts.
Only a blasphemer would accuse God of being a fool. Do you think God almighty would say "you know what would really help people? If I made Joseph look like a fraud and a false prophet. That will _really_ help my people"?
Do you think God would do that? Obviously not. And besides IF THAT WAS WHAT HE DID, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SAID THESE ARE A TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT RECORDS! Joseph would have explained all of this when making it. But he never did. Instead he claimed that none of it was a copy of the Bible.
Funny how the "inspired" Joseph Smith Translation is different to the copy of the sermon on the mount in the Book of Mormon. Surely if both are perfect and inspired, the book of Mormon should match the "inspired" Joseph Smith Translation. But it doesn't. It matched the erroneous KJV.
Why would God _want_ to make a true prophet look like a fraud? To test us? Well surely our correct response would be to obey God? So what does he say we need to do to false prophets? Does he say follow them blindly? Does he say excuse their lies? Or does he say obedience to God means rejection of false prophets?
Surely if this is a test, the correct response is for us to reject anyone who acts as a fraud. Hence we must obey God.
Either Joseph is a fraud and we reject him for that. Or Joseph is sent to look like a fraud as a test. In which case, God wants us to obey God and reject Joseph Smith. Either way, God wants us to reject this charlatan.
Ä. G
3 NEPHI 15:21 Other SHEEP I have which are not... JOHN 10:16 And other SHEEP.. (SHEEPS CAME WITH THE EUROPEANS UNTIL THE 1500s)
You know why this doesn't concern me one bit? Because I've heard the same story about horses, cement, writing on plates, etc. and we've now found that ancient people did write on plates. Horse bones have been found. Cement structures have been found. So whether the word sheep comes from sheep actually being there, or from translation, I'm not too concerned about it! These arguments are nothing new. Book of Mormon is true bro 🔥
Thats why all the BYU scientists are in agreement 😂@matthuber6270
Plagiarism? It is called faith because it's not fact.
I said a similar thing to my BYU English professor after she questioned me about my paper on John Milton. I told her that the power of God revealed nearly the exact same phrases to both me in 2008 and to Dr. Susan B. Iwanisziw in 1998. Unfortunately, even when I told my professor that only 6.4% of my paper contained the uncited writings of other people [5:50], she still failed me in the course and reported me to the honor code office. I was just trying to follow the prophet.
Why do biblical translation errors show up I’m the Book of Mormon?
Which errors do you mean? The more I have explored this topic the more I find less "errors" and more a range of possible interpretations. I have actually done some professional/academic translations. It is not nearly as straight forward a process as Google translate might suggest. Often there are multiple reasonable translations, all equally valid. It gets even worse with poetry/symbolic language. I know many modern Bible translations are focused on perceived 'accuracy' or 'readability' both of which can make symbolism less apparent.
A perfect example in Arthurian Literature is Launcelot, who in the earliest texts is just a nickname for Galahad due to his expertise with the spear. Translators moving between French, German, English, and Welsh/Breton confused the two. In attempts to clarify and make the text easier to read, they became depicted as two different individuals. There are plenty of other examples were clarification significantly changes intended meaning.
So with regards to the Book of Mormon, which the D&C says was given in the language and understanding of Joseph Smith, we need to look not only at word choice but context and meaning. A fact I wish David would have mentioned, is of the verses in common with the Bible, over fifty percent are rendered differently. It is a much more complicated subject than many critics admit.
@@brettmajeske3525 specifically errors from the 1769 version of the KJV. There are words and phrases that have been proven with further academic study to be verifiably wrong, which the KJV does correct in later editions of the Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525: I’m referring to specific words or phrases copied identically from mistranslations found in the exact copy of the Bible available to Joseph.
Compare such identical mistranslations to something like Nahom/NHM. If the similarity between a Book of Mormon place name and an inscription in the general area of Lehi’s journey which was apparently unknown to anyone in 1830 could be used as evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon, wouldn’t identical mistranslations of phrases unknown to ancient writers be stronger and found only in 19th century source materials be evidence that methods other than seer stones were used?
@@BrendonKing So which study is that? I hope you are not referring to the CES Letter, as along with the section on local names it is the least accurate and unscholarly section. Rather than making an analysis of how phrases are translated over time with credible authorities views on specific examples. he points out single variations as 'proof'. If you check his citations they either do not say what he claims they say, or they refer back to something else he posted.
@@seans5289 Again I would be interested to know which specific mistranslation you mean? I have heard many people making claims such exist, without seeing a whole lot of actually evidence. Is there somewhere with side by side examples?
It’s because Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon
God*
@@MeanMints5if god wrote it why are there thousands of changes?
Joseph Smith was very good at coping from other sources, such as the scriptures that he took and put them in his books. Also, he copied the symbols and rituals from the Freemasons, they are in the temple ceremonies, all over the temple buildingsf. God is not the translator of your gospel, your gospel is contrary to the Bible. God would not translate against His own word. The Book of Mormon has never been proven or authenticated by historians or archeologists. The angel Mormon is not in the bible, he has never been found anywhere. No historical proof of this so called angel that you display on your temples rather than Jesus Christ or the cross. This is why you should never call yourselves Christians. You say you believe in Him but you deny Him.