![A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation A Question From A Non-Mormon About the Translation](/board/YaBBImages/icons/pencil.gif)
A Question from a non-Mormon
Name: Brick
Country:
Comments: I am not a Mormon, but I have a copy of the "Book of Mormon" at home, and have read parts of Doctrines and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. As I have read the book of Mormon I have noticed that there are large sections of the book which copy almost word for word from the King James version of the Bible. I find this to be very strange.
The Book of Mormon was supposedly copied from Golden Plates which were inscribed a couple of thousand years ago in "Reformed Egyptian". Why would these same plates translate word for word in King James English? Also, it is a known fact that the King James translators made errors when translating some of the Hebrew/Greek words in several places---yet these same errors appear in the Book of Mormon which was translated from plates thousands of years old! Also, the King James translators also added "helps" to certain verses which appear in italics which are not part of the original manuscripts-----yet these also are directly translated into the book of Mormon! (As though someone were copying directly from the King James Bible, not golden plates, and therefore copying all the errors and additions that are found in that version of the Bible).
One verse, 1 John 5:7 is now known not to be part of any original manuscript, and was added to the King James from overzealous translators---yet the book of Mormon paraphrases this verse in 3 Nephi 11. I do not mean to be contentious here----truly---this is not my purpose for coming. I really am interested in finding out if any of you have ever thought how strange it is that Matthew 7(And many other chapters from the New Testament) would be exactly transliterated in 1611 English, with all the translating errors and additions, into the book of Mormon word for word, along with several other places in the same book? Did Moroni, or whoever chiseled those golden plates know two thousand years ahead of time what errors would be made by King James translators in 1611 and thus add them to the plates? Highly unlikely! ;D
I will be completely honest----after seeing this for myself I have been led to believe that the Book of Mormon cannot be the Word of God---but is the clever work of a man. The odds that those plates would have all the errors, additions, and wording of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible translators is just not believable. I would like to hear your opinions on this of course.
Name: Brick
Country:
Comments: Dear Administrator----
I think if you reread the post you will see that there are several questions in it that I would like to see explanations for. I even ended asking for others opinions on it. The whole post is actually a question---the question being how can one accept the book of Mormon as the Word of God if it appears to have places that are copied exactly from the 1611 King James Bible? How could those who chiseled the golden plates a couple of thousand years ago have known what errors and additions there would be to a Bible that was to be written in 1611? Because the wording from that edition is copied word from word in some places including the mistranslations, and additions in italics as they appear in the Bible of 1611--yet they are somehow ALSO on golden plates supposedly inscribed 2000 years or more before that. My question is---how is that possible?
Name: Brick
Country:
Comments: Since this is a non-Mormon thread I want to continue to ask a few more questions. I hope you don't see this as "hate-filled"--it is not. I am truly asking questions---and I am asking them based on statements I am making that I know will be controversial to believers in Mormon doctrine. I hope those who read don't take offense-----I am asking the same things many non-Mormons ask once investigating the book of Mormon---it is really just a natural thing to do.
So, here goes:
Here's one more question, although you can call it a statement if you'd like to.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are both written from literally hundreds and hundreds
of ancient fragments and texts that God made sure were saved from destruction through time. The Dead Sea scrolls confirmed that many of these fragments contain the same message that was given thousands of years ago. God has made sure that there is plenty of evidence that the Bible was indeed written over a period of thousands of years. 40 authors added to this great and historic Word of God.
Also, much of the Bible is PROVEN historically, cities appearing where the Bible says they did, and cultures discovered through archaeology proving that these people mentioned in the Bible existed.
But the Book of Mormon has no evidence to be garnered from fragments which were written thousands of years ago. In fact, there is nothing historic to be investigated except for writings made 1820 and after! Thewhole book is to be accepted on the word of one man, Joseph Smith, who said he had in his possesion "golden plates". Then we have a "testimony of three witnesses" who never really saw the plates, but testify that what is written down from them is real. Then there is a testimony of 8 persons also, who also never saw the plates but testify that what Joseph Smith said was true. But there are no other "fragments" that have been found after Joseph wrote this all down in 1820. In fact, these plates are no longer in anyone's possesion--we have to take the word of Joseph that they did indeed exist.
One question is----do you really believe God would work that way? Would he indeed reveal everything in that book to only one man, then take away all the evidence for these "plates", and leave neither fragment nor clue afterwards? Why would the Bible have SO MUCH evidence archaeologically and historically to prove that it has been around for thousands of years, while the book of Mormon must be accepted as coming from Golden Plates which we have no "proof" ever really existed? Why would God have so much evidence in place to verify that the Bible is extremely old, yet leave nothing but the testimony of one prophet and a few witnesses he convinced that the Book of Mormon is true?
Have you ever thought that you are putting your whole eternal destiny into a doctrine that ONE MAN claimed was true without any other verifiable archaeological or historical evidence that any of the peoples he wrote of ever really existed? There is no archaelogical proof the Lamanites or Nephites ever really existed. Yet we know the Israelites, Philistines, Egyptians, etc. Existed for sure---too much evidence exists to deny these people were real. Yet no valid archaeologists say that there is any proof whatsoever that the Lamanites, or Nephites were a real people, accept for archaeologists who are Mormons of course! and even they hope that "one day" more evidence will be found. They must admit that there is no real proof that has been found "yet" that can verify the massive civilization that supposedly existed as is mentioned in the book of Mormon. There is just no verifiable archaeological evidence.
Am I ranting? I don't mean to----I am seriously asking how one can put their whole eternal destiny into belief in a book that in no way can be historically proven? Again, please do not take offense, or think this is spoken in a hateful or mocking manner---I truly am stating and then asking these things based on my own inquiries after reading the Book of Mormon and questioning it's origins.
Name: Brick
Country:
Comments:
Name: Brick
Country:
Comments: Dear Admin. ----
Yes I have. And the Lord has always answered the same. He says to confirm it by his Word. Now, since the Bible has been around (Complete) for at least 1600 years, and the Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 (Appx) I will consult the Bible first. The Bible says "We walk by faith, and not by sight"--this therefore condemns any practice of "feeling" some confirmation in one's "bosom". We can easily be mislead by our feelings, so we should in no way rely on them.
In Galatians 1:8,9 is a very sobering scripture: