Two honest questions for Bible scholars...
 

The threads on the book "Misquoting Jesus" got me wondering about a couple of things:

1. Given the KJV is filled with errors and that more accurate versions of the Bible exist, do those more accurate version support or contradict the JST?

2. Given the KJV is highly inaccurate and that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from original text, how do LDS scholars reconcile the nearly word for word Bible passages that appear in the Book of Mormon?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or to bait anyone. They are fair questions, and I'm honestly curious how these issues are reconciled.

No one ever mistook me for a bible scholar, but I'll give a shot.

1. JST isn't meant to be a more perfect translation of the original text. It is a clarification where doctrinal misconceptions could likely arise. For example, reading the KJV and misinterpreting it could give you idea A. JST gives you idea B. A more accurate translation of the original text could give you idea C. A might be inaccurate doctrine while B and C might be different concepts but both accurate doctrine.

2. I disagree again with your concept of translation of JS--BoM in this case. I believe JS put into words KJV where other different words could have been used, but the KJV was familiar to him and to the potential BoM reading audience.

I am not a Bible scholar either, but I do think Kevin Barney's article on the subject is a good place to start:

The Joseph Smith Translation and the Ancient Texts of the Bible, 1986, Dialogue.

Link: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...&CISOPTR=23226

The article starts on page 85.

Here's my take:

1. As was stated by the other two, the JST was not always meant to be a perfect translation of the original language, but was at times meant to convey what the original words should have said. This operates under the assumption that even correctly translated words may take on a meaning that does not accurately reflect the original idea, or that the original words have been altered or incorrectly transmitted.

2. There are many changes made to the KJV portions in the Book of Mormon, and many are very significant. Essentially, I believe the KJV was used because it was, by and large, close enough, with a few exceptions.

Stephen Robinson was interesting how we would dance around the subject of the JST. He didn't want to directly say he didn't like it, but he didn't see eye to eye on a few issues involving it. I think he wished Joseph could have or would have waited until scholars had a shot at trying to get a truer, actual translation of the original text.

Those are good questions. I'm on the go this evening, but I will give you my take when I get a chance.

I'll take a stab...
 

1. This is a tough one to answer since I think the evidence shows that the JST is, well, i'll use the trite "midrashic" commentary that serves to emphasize or view the NT text through the lens of missionary work. I don't think the JST has anything to do with restoring or correcting any texts, and I think the expectation of the average member is not commensurate with JS's intention.

2. This is not a tough question, since you can argue that JS knew the KJV inside and out, and that knowledge conditioned his use of biblical passages in the BOM. I personally am not satisfied with this answer, but it is the one given by most FARMS scholars, for example. For me the bigger issue is the biblical texts included in the BOM. For example 2nd Isaiah, not written until well after the exile is included in the BOM, before it had even been written yet. Yes, I know, many say that the 2nd Isaiah dating is controversial....well, it's not controversial to mainstream scholars. If you read it, it presumes a post-exilic historical context, as much as LDS scholars try to say it is *prophesying* about the exile. It just doesn't fly.

I do not wish to contend with a scholar or pretend that I am in any way capable of extensive discourse on this subject but I find you commentary insufficient.

I understand the issue of ‘dating’ and why the explanation of ‘prophesying’ with regards to Isaiah passages doesn’t fly. Yet the Book of Mormon is of course an extensive ‘abridgment’ and does not claim to be anything more than that.

Perhaps It doesn’t fly because it is somewhat out of context … not unlike your two paragraphs that certainly represent many years of study and hard work, yet as I read them are insufficient.

Not understanding you...
 

How does the abridgment issue negate the problem with "Nephi" including texts that had not been written yet? I couldn't tell if you are disputing the Isaiah dating issue, or my application of it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the BOM is not an ancient abridgment, but a modern one? If so then I agree.

Mormon was charged with making an abrigment from many texts, thus Mormon included the texts, and not Nephi. Perhaps the chronology of their inclusion truly was prophetic, but not on the part of Nephi, but Mormon?