Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not sure how the church can place its imprimatur of authority explicitly or tacitly on a translation that corrects the translation errors contained in the KJV of Isiah that are replicated in second Nephi.

I don't think that can of worms gets opened purposefully.

Oh, no big deal, the NT is full of mistranslated OT from the LXX.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Oh, no big deal, the NT is full of mistranslated OT from the LXX.

This is something you think the church wants to start a conversation about?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not sure how the church can place its imprimatur of authority explicitly or tacitly on a translation that corrects the translation errors contained in the KJV of Isiah that are replicated in second Nephi.

I don't think that can of worms gets opened purposefully.

This is one of the compelling reasons I can think of to stay with the KJV. In fact, I think the church has said as much.

I'd actually be very interested in what the faithful Mormons advocating a change to another version have to say on this topic. If the KJV is as inferior as they say (and I'm not disputing that--just stating a premise), then what to say about those sections of scripture that are echoed in the Book of Mormon?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Surely thou jests?

No. He jesteth not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not sure how the church can place its imprimatur of authority explicitly or tacitly on a translation that corrects the translation errors contained in the KJV of Isiah that are replicated in second Nephi.

I don't think that can of worms gets opened purposefully.

So, we believe the bible is not translated correctly, but we don't want to pursue a better translation, since by so doing we would expose errors in the BOM translation? That's some pretty deep irony.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So, we believe the bible is not translated correctly, but we don't want to pursue a better translation, since by so doing we would expose errors in the BOM translation? That's some pretty deep irony.

So is it your position that the KJV-like passages in the Book of Mormon are as error-prone as the KJV itself?

[Indy Coug]

I think the Official Cougarguard Position is that the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon was some odd Joseph Smith artifact where he grabbed his KJV and slapped a few applicable Messianic and latter-day passages, complete with their anachronisms and incorrect translations due to the flawed 17th century source material.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This is something you think the church wants to start a conversation about?

That's one of the easier conversations, IMHO.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's one of the easier conversations, IMHO.

What do you imagine the official position could be (assuming the conversation is had)?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

So is it your position that the KJV-like passages in the Book of Mormon are as error-prone as the KJV itself?

I recall reading many years ago that many LDS scholars believe that JS inserted the KJV text where appropriate when he came to Isaiah sections that he recognized. Shoot, I think I even read that in the Ensign. If so, then I would certainly expect the corresponding sections in the BOM to carry the same errors at the KJV.