Download 2-Perfect Translation: Book Of Mormon

The Mormon Dilemma
ACCUSATION: Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is better than the Bible because it is
correctly translated, and that the presence of so many different translations of the Bible proves
there are problems with it. Yet the Book of Mormon contains historical errors, such as
claiming the presence of steel, horses, bees, and elephants in North America, which
contradicts historical and archaeological evidence.
COMMON MORMON RESPONSE: The Book of Mormon is the most perfect book on the
earth today. It was translated by Joseph Smith directly by the power of God. The fact that
horses & elephants aren't found by science doesn't mean they weren't here. Furthermore, just
because the ancient inhabitants of America called a certain animal a "horse" or an "elephant"
doesn't mean they were referring to the same animal we call it today. Their "horse" could have
been our "deer," and their "elephant" could have been our "mastodon;" and science has proved
the early existence of deer and mastodon in North America.
MY THOUGHTS: If the Book of Mormon is the most perfect book on earth, I must ask if that
claim holds true when it is translated into different languages. Mormon and non-Mormon
scholars alike agree that some meaning is always lost in translating, especially when it is
something as big as the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The Mormon church endorses the KJV
as the "official" translation of the Bible. So then what translation does it endorse when using
the Bible in cultures where English is not spoken? Here is a test for translation: Take your KJV
and translate it just as it is, word for word (as best is possible) back into the original
Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek of the Old & New Testaments. Compare it to a good Hebrew
/Aramaic version and Greek version of the Bible and see if it reads the same. (Having
performed this experiment myself and also having translated the original Greek into English, I
can tell you that re-translating the KJV does NOT render an accurate Hebrew/Aramaic &
Greek Bible.)
Yes, King James English is very beautiful and poetic. And it was the best translation available
when it was written. But thousands more transcripts of New and Old Testament writings have
been discovered since then (there are now more than 24,000 such manuscripts, the earliest
dating back to 125 A.D., not long after John wrote the book of Revelation!), requiring updates
to the KJV that resulted in the New KJV and other translations, each designed towards
translating for a certain audience or purpose. (Yes I know that the KJV people use today is an
updated edition of the KJV; I've examined a copy of an original 1611 KJV, and it shared little
with modern English.) And even though "modern editions" of the KJV are very beautiful to
read, our English in the United States today is quite different, though it shares many of the
same words. So then why did Joseph Smith translate the Reformed Egyptian of the gold plates
into the King James English instead of 1830's U.S. English when he received it?
The Hebrew word for horse referred to that animal which they called by that name, whatever it
may have been, whether it was what we today call a deer or antelope or goat.. The Greek word
for horse referred to that animal which they referred to as such, regardless of what we call that
particular animal today. A horse in English refers to that animal which we today call horse
1
(cowboys ride them, men bet on them at the races, they're strength is used to measure the
power output of a motor, etc.). However, let's suppose the word for horse in King James
English was not horse, but something different. Would the King James translators have then
translated the word into "horse" or into the name of the animal that they referred to as a horse?
Obviously the latter. They state that just because they received the same name in the Book of
Mormon does not mean they refer to the same metal/plant/animal of today. Well then why
didn't Smith translate whatever animal was mentioned into the name of the same animal we
know of so readers wouldn't be confused? It the plates said the animal was the same animal we
call an elephant, he should have translated it "elephant." If it was not the same animal, then he
should have translated it into the appropriately corresponding name of the animal, whether it
was a mastodon or mammoth or whatever. Likewise for the plants and metals. The argument
for "same name, different creature" falls apart here when one realizes that perhaps Joseph
Smith could have made a a little better translation of the names. Also, the argument for Smith's
perfect translation falls apart.
written by David F. Sims, doing my part to "turn the world upside down" (Acts 17:6)
All quotes taken from the New American Standard Bible.
2