Why is the language of the Book of Mormon so much like King James type English when the Book of Mormon was written hundreds of years after the King James bible and people didn't talk like that anymore?
Book of Mormon and King James Bible
1,801 Views |
93 Replies |
Last: 19 yr ago by ibmagg
As a kid didn't you ever trace over something? Usually comes out looking almost like the original.
This is a great topic.
The discussion will be very enlightening.
Let me start off with a few basics. We have hundreds of New Testament manuscripts written in Koine Greek - from different dates and locations. We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain most of the Old Testament.
When we translate such documents today, we translate them into modern language. In America, we translate them into modern English. In Brazil, we translate them into modern Portugese. In China, we translate them into modern Mandarin.
Why would someone "translate" a Greek record into an expired form of English? You might as well translate it into Olde English (ie, Beowulf)!
In the 1800s, when Joseph Smith penned the Book of Mormon, all he had was the King James Bible. Much of the Book of Mormon is plagiarized from the KJV. So, he had no choice but to mimic the KJV.
The discussion will be very enlightening.
Let me start off with a few basics. We have hundreds of New Testament manuscripts written in Koine Greek - from different dates and locations. We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain most of the Old Testament.
When we translate such documents today, we translate them into modern language. In America, we translate them into modern English. In Brazil, we translate them into modern Portugese. In China, we translate them into modern Mandarin.
Why would someone "translate" a Greek record into an expired form of English? You might as well translate it into Olde English (ie, Beowulf)!
In the 1800s, when Joseph Smith penned the Book of Mormon, all he had was the King James Bible. Much of the Book of Mormon is plagiarized from the KJV. So, he had no choice but to mimic the KJV.
The very fact that the Book of Mormon is "king jamesish" in language should raise a red flag. I guess that Smith thought that the language in the king james sounded authentic.
quote:
In the 1800s, when Joseph Smith penned the Book of Mormon, all he had was the King James Bible. Much of the Book of Mormon is plagiarized from the KJV. So, he had no choice but to mimic the KJV
Very Interesting.
There are actually quotes in the BoM from the KJV Bible, as well as the Methodist Hymnal and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered. This and other archeological research from the last 400 years improves our understanding of the original text. Translations get better and better with time.
Any discussion of translation must begin with the original text. The original text (for the New Testament) was Greek. The source documents are Greek.
It is silly to sugest that we should read language from the late 1500s (published 1611) as a definitive translation. It is an inferior translation.
Start with the Greek.
Any discussion of translation must begin with the original text. The original text (for the New Testament) was Greek. The source documents are Greek.
It is silly to sugest that we should read language from the late 1500s (published 1611) as a definitive translation. It is an inferior translation.
Start with the Greek.
FTA,
Great point. Any translation is only as good as the translators.
Great point. Any translation is only as good as the translators.
I would say that any translation is only as good as the translators and the resources available to them.
For one example, the KJV translators may have been very careful, but they lacked the resources available today.
For one example, the KJV translators may have been very careful, but they lacked the resources available today.
One important thing to remember:
The original authors of the Bible were inspired. The inspired text is found in the Greek. Translation of the Greek is not an inspired activity. It is a scholarly activity.
The closer we get to the original writings - the closer we get to knowing exactly what was written by Paul, James, Luke, John, etc; thus, the closer we get to God's inspired Word.
The original authors of the Bible were inspired. The inspired text is found in the Greek. Translation of the Greek is not an inspired activity. It is a scholarly activity.
The closer we get to the original writings - the closer we get to knowing exactly what was written by Paul, James, Luke, John, etc; thus, the closer we get to God's inspired Word.
ttt
nm
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 8/3/2006 7:04a).]
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 8/3/2006 7:04a).]
Dr. Hugh Nibley explains why King James English was used in translating the Book of Mormon.
"Now as to your question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"
The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.
For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions. My old Hebrew and Arabic teacher, Professor Popper, would throw a student out of the class who did not use "thee" and "thou" in constructing. "This is the word of God!" he would cry indignantly. "This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!"
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version--and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.
One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."
Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.
At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence." Professor Gaster too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.
By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!"
So you see even in more modern times, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated into King James English, because it is felt by many to be the language of scripture.
Cold Steel
[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 8/3/2006 10:16a).]
"Now as to your question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"
The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.
For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions. My old Hebrew and Arabic teacher, Professor Popper, would throw a student out of the class who did not use "thee" and "thou" in constructing. "This is the word of God!" he would cry indignantly. "This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!"
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version--and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.
One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."
Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.
At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence." Professor Gaster too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.
By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!"
So you see even in more modern times, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated into King James English, because it is felt by many to be the language of scripture.
Cold Steel
[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 8/3/2006 10:16a).]
The King James Version has a style and even a historical beauty about it, that is why it is still popular today for many.
The book of Mormon reads like it is strained in its langauge, like looking at something through an obscure glass. A counterfeit.
It also strain and emphasises current debates of the time ans answers them as if Christ clarified in America and not in Jerusalem.
The problem of infant baptism did not come till WAY later than the 1st C, yet the BOM "solves" it. Joseph Smith was a troubled man needing continued revelation, so he got it.
And all so convinient...
The book of Mormon reads like it is strained in its langauge, like looking at something through an obscure glass. A counterfeit.
It also strain and emphasises current debates of the time ans answers them as if Christ clarified in America and not in Jerusalem.
The problem of infant baptism did not come till WAY later than the 1st C, yet the BOM "solves" it. Joseph Smith was a troubled man needing continued revelation, so he got it.
And all so convinient...
AgGermany -Do you remember the statement of the many plain and precious truths that were "lost" from the Bible? You do an excellent job of pointing some of them out. Wicked and designing priests plus carelessness on the part of others was a deadly combination. This is why the Book of Mormon is so valuable.
Its "stand alone" converting power is so replete through out Church history right up until today! Catholic priests and ministers alike have been converted as they read it with a sincere and real intent!
Its "stand alone" converting power is so replete through out Church history right up until today! Catholic priests and ministers alike have been converted as they read it with a sincere and real intent!
Cold Steel, I appreciate the article, but I don't find any of those explanations particularly persuasive.
[This message has been edited by Patriarch (edited 8/3/2006 2:11p).]
quote:This is not very persuasive. I often read books from the late 1800s and they are nothing like the KJV of the Bible.
The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English.
quote:The only churches I am aware of that prays this way are mormons and the amish.
For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions.
quote:There is nothing formal about "thee" and "thou."
"This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!"
quote:So scripture must be KJ english????? That is based on a misunderstanding about how we received the Bible.
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version--and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.
quote:I wished he had listed which contemporary translation he was talking about because I have NKJ, NIV, and NASB in my house and I don't believe any of them use this language.
In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."
quote:Citation?
So you see even in more modern times, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated into King James English, because it is felt by many to be the language of scripture.
[This message has been edited by Patriarch (edited 8/3/2006 2:11p).]
quote:
Patriarch: Cold Steel, I appreciate the article, but I don't find any of those explanations particularly persuasive.
That is fine. I don’t find many of the arguments of our critics on this message board particularly persuasive either.
quote:
Patriarch: This is not very persuasive. I often read books from the late 1800s and they are nothing like the KJV of the Bible.
It certainly was used in religious writings of the era.
quote:
Patriarch: The only churches I am aware of that prays this way are mormons and the amish.
Certainly today that is the case, but not in the early 1800’s.
quote:
Patriarch: There is nothing formal about "thee" and "thou."
I believe the good Dr. was using formal in the sense of, following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations. He did say, "This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!" Thee, thou and thine are the accepted forms.
quote:
Patriarch: So scripture must be KJ english????? That is based on a misunderstanding about how we received the Bible.
You missed the point. In Joseph Smith’s day the KJV was the language of scripture. Warren F. Forgay says:
quote:
The intimate form of speech is actually quite important, especially for worship. The intimate words (thee, thou, thine, thy, etc.) convey a special intimacy, as well as a sense of awe, holiness, and sacredness especially appropriate for worship and Sacred Scripture. In liturgy, which is supposed to be poetic, beautiful, and convey a sense of the sacred, the intimate form is most appropriate. It is also very appropriate for a sacred text, i.e., the Bible, which is a holy Book. A special sense of this holiness is lost when the intimate form is abandoned. The formal words you and your, appropriate enough in the business world or when writing scientific papers, are sorely lacking the qualities best suited for sacredness, holiness, poetry, beauty, i.e., the higher things with which the world of science and technology can never touch.
It has nothing to do with how we received the Bible.
quote:
Patriarch: I wished he had listed which contemporary translation he was talking about because I have NKJ, NIV, and NASB in my house and I don't believe any of them use this language.
If you read the quote a bit closer he was referring to translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, not translations of the Bible.
quote:
Patriarch: Citation?
Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Michigan: Baker, 1955; reprinted 1978), 1:397.
Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 136.
[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 8/3/2006 4:46p).]
quote:As a matter of fact, this language was even starting to go out of date at the time the KJV was first published (around 1610)! No one in New England taled like that in the 1800s.
The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English.
Can any Mormon explain why the KJV, which is pretty but is an inferior translation, is the only version used by the LDS church today?
quote:
FTA: As a matter of fact, this language was even starting to go out of date at the time the KJV was first published (around 1610)! No one in New England taled like that in the 1800s.
Call for evidence please.
Cold Steel
IBMAGG,
You mean deceived a Catholic priest (as if there is merit there), you mean converted to be a Mormon.
The Word of God truly converts Catholic priests, and can make them a Christian.
There is nothing lost from the Word of God. The book of Mormon is from Mormon a deceiving Spirit. I am glad you reject the Bible as the Sword of the Spirit.
quote:
Catholic priests and ministers alike have been converted as they read it with a sincere and real intent!
You mean deceived a Catholic priest (as if there is merit there), you mean converted to be a Mormon.
The Word of God truly converts Catholic priests, and can make them a Christian.
There is nothing lost from the Word of God. The book of Mormon is from Mormon a deceiving Spirit. I am glad you reject the Bible as the Sword of the Spirit.
IBMAGG,
I agree with the first of your statements, regarding designing priests of the Catholic church and careless error in not handling the Word of God properly left the church is shreds.
That is why careful study of the Scriptures is so valauble, and the chosen "priesthood" and self proclaimed Apostles is so deceptive.
The claim of the Book of Mormon being Scripture is a lie and leaves you holding another Gospel.
You don't need Mormon telling anyone that repentance and baptism are essential to salvation, that was WRITTEN in the 1st C and recording by a eye witnesses and circulated in the time just after the events and until now.
quote:
Wicked and designing priests plus carelessness on the part of others was a deadly combination. This is why the Book of Mormon is so valuable.
I agree with the first of your statements, regarding designing priests of the Catholic church and careless error in not handling the Word of God properly left the church is shreds.
That is why careful study of the Scriptures is so valauble, and the chosen "priesthood" and self proclaimed Apostles is so deceptive.
The claim of the Book of Mormon being Scripture is a lie and leaves you holding another Gospel.
You don't need Mormon telling anyone that repentance and baptism are essential to salvation, that was WRITTEN in the 1st C and recording by a eye witnesses and circulated in the time just after the events and until now.
quote:
The Word of God truly converts Catholic priests, and can make them a Christian.
AgGermany,
Do you believe that Catholic priests 1) "need" to be converted, and 2) are not Christian?
AgGermany -you error when you think the "fullness" of the "restored Gospel" is "another" gospel. It may seem like it at first until you study it closely, because we have not had it in almost 2,000 years.
I may be clear to you that repentance and baptism for the remission of sin is necessary, but it is not to many including those who post on this board. The Book of Mormon is a 2nd witness to the truths in the Bible (as far as they are there) and more fully explains and fleshes out that which was lost.
I may be clear to you that repentance and baptism for the remission of sin is necessary, but it is not to many including those who post on this board. The Book of Mormon is a 2nd witness to the truths in the Bible (as far as they are there) and more fully explains and fleshes out that which was lost.
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered. This and other archeological research from the last 400 years improves our understanding of the original text. Translations get better and better with time.
Any discussion of translation must begin with the original text. The original text (for the New Testament) was Greek. The source documents are Greek.
It is silly to sugest that we should read language from the late 1500s (published 1611) as a definitive translation. It is an inferior translation.
Start with the Greek.
Any discussion of translation must begin with the original text. The original text (for the New Testament) was Greek. The source documents are Greek.
It is silly to sugest that we should read language from the late 1500s (published 1611) as a definitive translation. It is an inferior translation.
Start with the Greek.
FTA is exactly right
Redstone,
1) yes, all those outside Biblical conversion must be led by the Spirit, through the Word, to (into) Christ as he proclaimed... that includes "priest" if they were led another way
2) it is not I who labeled them Roman Catholic, and not merely Christian it is their own distinction (unbiblical)
The point of this thread was the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. The Mormon claimed conversions to the Book of Mormon, I claim conversions to Christ throught His Word, the Bible. A Catholic priest was the example used... I used the opportunity to say the Priest needs to be converted the "Bible" way, and so do I and you.
All will be judged by the Words of Christ and not the words of the Pope.
quote:
Do you believe that Catholic priests 1) "need" to be converted, and 2) are not Christian?
1) yes, all those outside Biblical conversion must be led by the Spirit, through the Word, to (into) Christ as he proclaimed... that includes "priest" if they were led another way
2) it is not I who labeled them Roman Catholic, and not merely Christian it is their own distinction (unbiblical)
The point of this thread was the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. The Mormon claimed conversions to the Book of Mormon, I claim conversions to Christ throught His Word, the Bible. A Catholic priest was the example used... I used the opportunity to say the Priest needs to be converted the "Bible" way, and so do I and you.
All will be judged by the Words of Christ and not the words of the Pope.
AgGermany -a double advantage over you; we claim conversion to Christ through the Bible and the Book of Mormon. And since our "fruits" are so much greater than any other single church; the "evidence" is on our side!
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 8/5/2006 8:36p).]
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 8/5/2006 8:36p).]
ibm - Just exactly how much free medical care do you give away in a year? How much free food? Do you really want to compare Mormon charities (the fruits) with Mother Teresa's?
germany,
So then Catholic is not Christian, because it is anti-Biblical.
What is your particular denomination? How many of them feel the same way? Or, if you attend a "Bible" church, how popular is that sentiment?
So then Catholic is not Christian, because it is anti-Biblical.
What is your particular denomination? How many of them feel the same way? Or, if you attend a "Bible" church, how popular is that sentiment?
73 -millions and millions of dollars and tons and tons of food every year. We are just now finishing up vaccinating a couple of million kids in Africa for measels. That is over two million dollars alone. How much aid have you sent to the muslim countries who have had majors diasters. Sister Teresa is a wonderful person but out of a church so large you can only come up with one person like her? Of course She didn't raise a family and fulfil that part of "multiply and replinish the earth". Our Church provides thousands and thousands of volunteer hours in underdeveloped countries; from digging water wells, showing them out to plant and fetilize, hygiene, etc. Everything possible to make them SELF-RELIANT!
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 8/5/2006 10:37p).]
[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 8/5/2006 10:37p).]
She is only one. St. Judes Children's Research Hospital is another, Catholic Charities is another, and on and on. I commend you guys for doing so much, but your numbers are too small to compete with us....But keep trying, by all means, as you are doing the Lord's work...
73 -are you aware how often Catholic Charities and the LDS Church work together on large humanitarian projects?
Redstone,
Catholic does not equal Christian. Words describe and define things...Catholic (meaning Roman Catholic) does not Equal Christian (follower of Christ) by the very words they use, I didn't label or define them.
1. Name a single Biblically defined Denomination.
2. Feeling what way Redstone? (can you tell how someone feels over an internet forum) Do you think on can feel something it it not really be true?
3. How "popular" is a sentiment? How popular was Jesus on the day he was crucified?
The church is not "Popular" driven, Redstone, like some political party trying to gain favor or like some POP music group or the current "in" thing.
quote:
So then Catholic is not Christian, because it is anti-Biblical.
Catholic does not equal Christian. Words describe and define things...Catholic (meaning Roman Catholic) does not Equal Christian (follower of Christ) by the very words they use, I didn't label or define them.
quote:
What is your particular denomination? How many of them feel the same way? Or, if you attend a "Bible" church, how popular is that sentiment?
1. Name a single Biblically defined Denomination.
2. Feeling what way Redstone? (can you tell how someone feels over an internet forum) Do you think on can feel something it it not really be true?
3. How "popular" is a sentiment? How popular was Jesus on the day he was crucified?
The church is not "Popular" driven, Redstone, like some political party trying to gain favor or like some POP music group or the current "in" thing.
How come no Mormons on this thread will address the original thread topic and the comments made by FTA?
AgGermany:
You weren't sent from God to judge his believers were you?
You weren't sent from God to judge his believers were you?