? for the big-brained B of M experts...about translation - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

rebelx · 08-20-2005, 04:57 AM

We all know the bible has been thru so many translations that alot of the bible is simply false. The King James version of the bible is written in what I guess I consider Old English...i.e., "thee" "thou" "hence" etc....

I've always been curious why, considering the above, does the B of M carry many verses from Isaiah and from the b-attititudes (sermon on the mount) that are word for word/identical to the King James version of those same verses in the Bible.

It just seems to me that after many different translations and the fact te Bible is written in an older English language, that the B of M may have similar teachings from Jesus and Isaiah, but the EXACT wording would not be the same.

Any insight? Its bugged me for years.

MikeWaters · 08-20-2005, 05:02 AM

well, I don't know enough about the history to know the exact process by which JS went through to translate. But it could have very well been a recognition process....."oh yes, the beattitudes" and he recorded them as per his memory.

But let me take this one step further. It's interesting that the Joseph Smith Translation goes back and changes some of the beattitudes, and therefore would presumably also be corrections of the BoM beattitudes.

I don't see this as evidence of anything untoward or untrue, but rather, giving peeks into how JS received revelation, which I do not understand fully......(an understatement).

SeattleUte · 08-27-2005, 04:04 PM

Rebelex:

Why not consider the most logical explanation--the parts of the Book of Mormon that verbatum or nearly verbatum track the King James Version of the Bible were copied from a King James Version of the Bible. (This doesn't take a big brain, by the way.)

There is no one to one relationship between an original text and the words that might be chosen to convey its meaning in a second language, especially where that second language is English. A "translator" translating a foreign language text into English in the real world has the discretion to use any one of what is inevitably a number of choices in the English language to convey a concept in the original text--e.g., there may be one or any number of words (could well be one) in a Hebrew text meaning "goodbye" in strict translation, and the translator for any number of reasons may choose goodbye or adieu or farewell or so long or whatever. A translator may want to convey a mood better captured by farewell or adieu than goodbye. One of the wonderful things about the English language is that because its sources are so vast we have these choices.

Obviously any two translators may disagree about which words better convey the thought. This is why works such as Anna Karenina are continously the subject of fresh translations that sell briskly.

Indeed, Book of Mormon apologists often cite the inherently discretionary nature of translations in response to criticisms of the Book of Mormon containing a French word, adieu. I agree with them. But the logic works both ways, as I've explained above. While I was in the MTC my bishop said he presumed Joseph just referred to the King James Version because the work had been done and it was more efficient. Maybe that explanation will work for you.

08-20-2005, 04:57 AM	#1
rebelx Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2	? for the big-brained B of M experts...about translation We all know the bible has been thru so many translations that alot of the bible is simply false. The King James version of the bible is written in what I guess I consider Old English...i.e., "thee" "thou" "hence" etc.... I've always been curious why, considering the above, does the B of M carry many verses from Isaiah and from the b-attititudes (sermon on the mount) that are word for word/identical to the King James version of those same verses in the Bible. It just seems to me that after many different translations and the fact te Bible is written in an older English language, that the B of M may have similar teachings from Jesus and Isaiah, but the EXACT wording would not be the same. Any insight? Its bugged me for years.

08-27-2005, 04:04 PM	#3
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Book of Mormon traslation/KJ Version of Bible Rebelex: Why not consider the most logical explanation--the parts of the Book of Mormon that verbatum or nearly verbatum track the King James Version of the Bible were copied from a King James Version of the Bible. (This doesn't take a big brain, by the way.) There is no one to one relationship between an original text and the words that might be chosen to convey its meaning in a second language, especially where that second language is English. A "translator" translating a foreign language text into English in the real world has the discretion to use any one of what is inevitably a number of choices in the English language to convey a concept in the original text--e.g., there may be one or any number of words (could well be one) in a Hebrew text meaning "goodbye" in strict translation, and the translator for any number of reasons may choose goodbye or adieu or farewell or so long or whatever. A translator may want to convey a mood better captured by farewell or adieu than goodbye. One of the wonderful things about the English language is that because its sources are so vast we have these choices. Obviously any two translators may disagree about which words better convey the thought. This is why works such as Anna Karenina are continously the subject of fresh translations that sell briskly. Indeed, Book of Mormon apologists often cite the inherently discretionary nature of translations in response to criticisms of the Book of Mormon containing a French word, adieu. I agree with them. But the logic works both ways, as I've explained above. While I was in the MTC my bishop said he presumed Joseph just referred to the King James Version because the work had been done and it was more efficient. Maybe that explanation will work for you. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

08-20-2005, 05:02 AM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	well, I don't know enough about the history to know the exact process by which JS went through to translate. But it could have very well been a recognition process....."oh yes, the beattitudes" and he recorded them as per his memory. But let me take this one step further. It's interesting that the Joseph Smith Translation goes back and changes some of the beattitudes, and therefore would presumably also be corrections of the BoM beattitudes. I don't see this as evidence of anything untoward or untrue, but rather, giving peeks into how JS received revelation, which I do not understand fully......(an understatement).