Does the Book of Mormon reproduce translation errors from the KJV?

The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.

Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the 'CES Letter', asks "[w]hat are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"^[16]

Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask "if the Book of Mormon is ‘the most correct book of any on earth,’ why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?"^[17]

There are five questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:

1. Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?
2. Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV? We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
3. Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways? Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches a person would get closer to God and his nature than by reading any other book.
4. If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?
5. Does the required theory or theology of translation to which the critic adheres make sense in a specifically LDS context?

Question #1: Is the 'error' really an error?

The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow

What is a translation error?^[18] For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as queen when, it means king. The word for queen in Spanish is "reina". A translation error when a word in the source language is inaccurately and unintentionally given a mistaken word in the target language.

We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not need to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.

For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same arbitrary decisions and popularization.

Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.

We Don't Have the Original Manuscripts of the Biblical Text. Even If We Did, There's Doubt that the Book of Mormon's Translation Would Be in Error

We should also note that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the earliest known copies of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least mildly suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have copies of the manuscripts and they may reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. There's good reason to doubt it including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts don't accurately reproduce the original text.^[19]

On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we simply can't know whether it does. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it in this broader sense.

This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.^[20]

We often forget that there are typically three layers we must identify to understand a written text:

1. what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
2. what is actually written, and
3. our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.

Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.

With a translated text there is a fourth layer to identify and untangle from the other three:

4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the translator thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.

Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author the text understood them.

Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demands some humility on our part.

The most that we can say is that based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship, some of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.

With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proved facts.

Question #2: Is the error unique to the 1769 KJV?

1. Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?

First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. For these and other reasons mentioned below, we can reject a charge of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith:

Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769

As a corrective to the 'CES Letter', the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.

The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can read the 1611 edition online and see for themselves.

The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.

A slow drift in the argument

Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case.

The authors on whom the 'CES Letter' seems to rely did not claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of italics in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."^[21]:p.130

Proof is not ancient?

This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.^[22]

KJV as a base text?

Stan Spencer writes that

[a]lthough the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.^[23]:49

The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible.^[23]:47n5 The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible is available online and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation.

The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)

Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:

The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.^[23]:47–48

Academic use of base texts for new translation

Summary: See here for discussion of translators using other documents as base texts for their translations.

Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism

Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is not plagiarism. At most, all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not plagiarizing it.

As far as material from Micah is concerned, this is a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of God's message in Micah 4꞉12-13 and {{s_short|Micah|5|8-14)). (3 Nephi 16꞉14-15; 20꞉16-20; 21꞉12^[24] Mormon uses Micah 5꞉8 similarly in Mormon 5꞉24.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.

John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the mount.^[25]

Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text

Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.

Timeline of the Book of Mormon translation and publications

Summary: Our current Book of Mormon was translated from 7 April to end of June 1829.

Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith

A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.^[26] One verse (2 Nephi 12꞉16) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.^[27] John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.^[28] BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of Isaiah 2꞉2, as contained in 2 Nephi 12꞉2, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."^[29]

These factors throw huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously possible that he did, but highly unlikely.

Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted

The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.^[30]

All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process

Stan Spencer observed,

[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.^[23]:59

Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and some are specifically clear that he did not have any book or manuscript to which he referred.^[31]

Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV

Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.^[32]

Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)

When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but through divine revelation from God rather than out in the open on the table.^[33]

Plagiarism is implausible #7—Archaic vocabulary

Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are adamant that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a massive amount arguing for this stance. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.^[34] This information is summarized by Evidence Central at the hotlink to the right.

Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only after the translation was finished

We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.^[35]

Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.^[36] Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).^[37] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations

As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12꞉2: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV".^[38] This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes are indeed (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.^[23]:50n11 But many others aren't. We can actually show that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding (1 Nephi 19꞉23). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,^[39] has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name Coriantumr spelled with mr and not an mer as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim and that he could spell them out exactly to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.

Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation

Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."^[23]:88

Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant

Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls, a far more basic fact than the meaning of italics. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact, how likely is it that he knew the Bible well enough to plagiarize it, much less repeat that plagiarism from memory?

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that

I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.^[40]

What did Joseph know about the italics in the KJV?

Summary: How aware was Joseph about what the italics in the Book of Mormon meant?

Plagiarism is implausible #12—No evidence Joseph's memory would allow the feat critics require

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an eidetic (or "photographic") memory.

1. 

   Evidence Central, Evidence #1: Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education (Article)

   There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.

Plagiarism from King James Bible?

Summary: This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text.

2. Are the KJV translation errors really errors? If so, do they lead us into erroneous ethical ideas or theological ideas about God?

Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."^[41]:220

Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."^[41]:214 Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.

Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.

Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.

The New Testament and the Book of Mormon

In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.

All of these potential problems are discussed in the expandable table below.

Click "expand" below to view the entire table.

Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon

Location in Canon	Erroneous Translation	Passage	Commentary
1. Exodus 15꞉4 ~ 1 Nephi 2꞉5	Red Sea	This one isn't a quotation of a biblical passage per se but the use of a particular biblical name. The Book of Mormon and King James Bible consistently call the sea that Moses and the children of Israel crossed when fleeing from the Egyptians the "Red Sea". (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics contend that this is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew yam sûp. Instead of "Red Sea", critics contend that it should read "Reed sea". We have responded to this theory elsewhere on the wiki.
2. Isaiah 49꞉4 ~ 1 Nephi 21꞉4	Work	"Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critic David P. Wright asserts that the better translation would be "reward" instead of "work".[42]:219n48. The verses concern either Israel's, the Messiah's,[43] or Isaiah's response to God who in verse 3 calls one of them His servant in whom He will be glorified. One of them responds that, in their own judgement, they are weak and frail as a servant but that nonetheless, God will judge and reward them. The intent of the passage can be argued as correct no matter the translation, however. If the passage is translated as "reward", the Book of Mormon already teaches that God rewards us despite our frailties both moral and vocational. The Book of Mormon already teaches that God is our reward. Nephi teaches us that beautifully in his psalm recorded in 2 Nephi 4.[44] If the passage is translated as "work", one could interpret it in a few ways. One could say that God works through his servants to do good things despite their frailties. In that case, Paul tells the Phillipians that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."[45] In the previous chapter, Isaiah 8, God tells Israel "I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."[46] One could alternatively interpret it as saying that the work of Isaiah, the Messiah, or Israel is chosen or ordained by God to do a work on their own: without God's intervening power. Isaiah recounts how God called him in Isaiah 6. God indicates that Israel is his chosen, covenant people throughout the Old Testament text. The Messiah is the anointed one and is prophesied of throughout Isaiah's record and in other Old Testament prophecies. It seems that no matter the translation and interpretation, there is nothing that isn't clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
3. Isaiah 49꞉5 ~ 1 Nephi 21꞉5	Though Israel be not gathered	"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics assert that the better translation would be "to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel be gathered to him."[42]:172[47] Neither the Book of Mormon rendering nor the critics' change the meaning significantly.
4. Isaiah 49꞉8 ~ 1 Nephi 21꞉8	Have I heard thee	"Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation would be "I answer/have answered you."[42]:172 Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, hearing and doing something or responding to them were functionally the same thing. You didn't hear someone if you didn't respond to them. Something similar may be going on here. The passage means that the Lord heard the cries of Israel and helped them, which is already affirmed with "in a day of salvation have I helped thee".
5. Isaiah 49꞉24 ~ 1 Nephi 21꞉24	Or the lawful captive delivered	"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation would be "Can...captives (be) retrieved from a victor?"[42]:219n48. Popular English biblical translations vary between saying captives of the "mighty", "tyrant", "righteous", "victor", or "conquerer". The verse can only be considered a translation variant rather than an error. "The rhetorical questions function here as assertions of divine power insofar as the LORD can make these things happen".[48]:1047n24–26 God is asserting that he can free the Israelites taken captive by those that oppress them. Thus, regardless of the translation options, the intent of the verse is not changed substantively.
6. Isaiah 50꞉4 ~ 2 Nephi 7꞉4	Know how to speak a word in season	"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"[42]:172–73. Even this is part of Wright's essay discussing KJV translation errors perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. As such, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to him that is weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.
7. Isaiah 51꞉4 ~ 2 Nephi 8꞉4	Rest	"Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics think that the metaphor "make my judgment to rest/repose for a light" is merely "odd." "Many modern versions take the verb (which the KJV translates 'make rest') with the beginning of the next verse (sometimes with emendation)."[42]:173 The sentence construction is a bit odd but it doesn't substantively change the meaning of the verse, which is that God's judgement (sometimes translated "justice") will be a light for the people. Where exactly would the judgement "rest"? This is not certain. Perhaps on the wicked? Regardless, the rhetorical goals of the verse are accomplished. Some might think that the verse is communicating that God will cease to judge and that this will be a light to the people, which would indeed be incorrect teaching; but that interpretation is inconsistent with the first clause ("for a law shall proceed from me").
8. Isaiah 2꞉4 ~ 2 Nephi 12꞉4	Rebuke	"And he shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew verb here lacks the negative sense of rebuke—that is, it means 'to judge' rather than 'to reprove'; note the preceding parallel line: 'and he shall judge among the nations'."[41]:217 The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that God actually will rebuke peoples that come down on the negative side of God's judgements. In any dispute, there will be rebukes that God sends forth—implicitly or otherwise—for the wrongdoer. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in Proverbs 3꞉11-12, Hebrews 12꞉5-6, and Helaman 15꞉3.
9. Isaiah 2꞉6 ~ 2 Nephi 12꞉6	Please themselves in the children of strangers	"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is closer to things like "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."[42]:169 The verse concerns the idolatry of Israel. "Pleasing themselves" is ambiguous because it could certainly be used (though, admittedly, awkwardly) to refer to making deals with the people of idolatrous nations. It could refer to any type of positive activity with foreigners/strangers. Regardless of the positive activity, it is clear that doing it with foreigners symbolizes the kind of idolatry and apostasy the Lord/Isaiah mean to refer to in this verse. Thus it's unclear that there's a substantive change of meaning and, even if there were, the passage would still accomplish what it sets out to do.
10. Isaiah 2꞉9 ~ 2 Nephi 12꞉9	Boweth down	"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive them not" (Book of Mormon, 1830 Edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Runnells asserts that the correct translation is "and the mean man boweth down not, and the great man humbleth himself [not]: therefore forgive them not."[47] Interestingly, the current edition of the Book of Mormon contains just this translation. "And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not." The only difference between Runnells' proposal and the current edition of the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon replaces them in "forgive them not" to him and omits the second not that the critic has in brackets. The essential message of the evils of idolatry is not affected. But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses rejects using "not" after "boweth down". The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) has this verse rendered as "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."[49]:108 This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his Analysis of Textual Variants.[50]:656–60 Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors. But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the idols. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, its saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God. No matter which edition we're consulting here, we are not compelled to read the essential intent of the verse wrongly and, indeed, with careful reading, it seems that the essential intent of the verse will be captured by careful, studious readers no matter which translation/edition is consulted. It seems implausible to believe the author (ancient or modern) meant to endorse or encourage idolatry.
11. Isaiah 2꞉16 ~ 2 Nephi 12꞉16	Pictures	"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant pictures" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant ships".[41]:217 Critic Jeremy Runnells thinks it should be either "image", "ships," or "crafts".[47] Yes, he includes "image" as somehow a potentially more correct translation than "pictures". Critic David P. Wright thinks it should be either "grand ships" or "precious things".[42]:169 Though there are at least four modern, popular, English biblical translations that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. Popular English translations vary between referring to ships/crafts or pleasant imagery/pictures. It's not entirely certain, but the more likely correct translation is ships. Isaiah intends to use the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be brought down and taken away so as to eliminate pride. Either ships, crafts, or pleasant imagery/pictures can do/be a part of that. Thus the intent hasn't changed at all and no doctrinal error occurs.[51]
12. Isaiah 3꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉2	Prudent	"The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"In the phrase 'the prudent and the ancient', the adjectival noun prudent is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for divining. This phrase is translated, for instance, as 'the diviner and the elder' in the English Standard Version."[41]:217 Critic David P. Wright agrees.[42]:170 The verse concerns the Assyrians' coming invasion of Israel and carrying them away into captivity. The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that "[t]he Assyrians were well known for deporting the leading figures and skilled craftspeople of a conquered society in order to exploit their talents elsewhere in the empire and to destabilize the conquered society to prevent further revolt."[48]:984n3.1–12. Thus, the intent of the verse is to use accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that the most talented and wisest of Israelite society were going to be taken away captive by the Assyrians. That can include the prudent. Also, diviners may be described as prudent. In any case, this does not alter the verses' meaning—men of importance or value are being subject to capture and deportation.
13. Isaiah 3꞉3 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉3	Orator	"The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"Here in the Hebrew the sense of orator is 'enchanter.' The English word derives from the Latin verb meaning 'to pray' (see definition 1 under orator in the [Oxford English Dictionary])."[41]:217 Critic David P. Wright derives the same analysis as Skousen.[42]:170 Same commentary here as made for the preceeding entry for 2 Nephi 13꞉2.
14. Isaiah 3꞉8 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉3	Provoke the eyes of his glory	"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critic David Wright asserts that the better translation is "Rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."[42]:170 The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse from the KJV. In the Book of Mormon it is rendered "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongues and their doings have been against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." 4-5 other modern, popular, English biblical translations render it with "provoke". This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language since one of the definitions of the word provoke is "to challenge" which is clearly in agreement with modern translations of the Bible.[52]:170 The Oxford English Dictionary similarly provides examples of writers near the time of the King James translation using "provoke" to mean "[t]o call out or summon to a fight; to challenge, to defy" and "[t]o incite (a person or animal) to anger; to annoy, vex, irritate, or exasperate, esp. deliberately."[53] This fits in with Wright's suggestions of insult and defiance.
15. Isaiah 3꞉18 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉18	Cauls	"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and cauls" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Oxford English Dictionary defines caul as 'a netted cap or head-dress, often richly ornamented'. The Hebrew today is usually translated today as a headband."[41]:214 Isaiah's intent is to communicate that the Lord will take away the most prized possessions of the women of Jerusalem because those possessions cause arrogance. Whether headbands or cauls being taken away, it doesn't change the essential message of Isaiah—and both are worn on the head.
16. Isaiah 3꞉18 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉18	Tires like the moon	"and cauls and round tires like the moon" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"In the Hebrew, the word tire refers to something round, either a crescent or perhaps a round pendant for the neck. The use of tire here in Isaiah 3꞉18 originated in the 1560 Geneva Bible: 'in that day shall the Lord take away the ornament of the slipper and the cauls and the round tires', where tire is a shortening from attire and refers to an ornament for a woman's head. The 1568 Bishop's Bible expanded on this by placing an internal note in square brackets after round tires: 'and the cauls and the round tires [after the fashion of the moon]'. This interpretative remark was apparently derived from the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, where the word used for 'crescent ornament' or 'little crescent' was a diminutive of the word for moon. The 1611 King James translators decided to embed this remark within the text itself by omitting the brackets, thus 'and round tires like the moon'. Since this interpretative prepositional phrase was not in the original Hebrew, it should have been placed in italics in the King James text."[41]:215 This doesn't appear to be translation error, but just a variant.
17. Isaiah 3꞉20 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉20	Tablets	"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings," (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states that the best translation would be something like the Latin Vulgate's "scent-bottles". It states that the translation rendered literally is "'little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],' made use of by breathing."[54] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is better rendered as something like "tomb" or "grave".[55] This is most likely a translation variant, given the disagreement among scholars. It may not be an error at all. The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a scent-bottle, a tomb, or a grave, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. (Given the poetic nature of Isaiah, all of these resonances may be intended--their scent bottles of life are ironically death which they pack around with them.)
18. Isaiah 3꞉20 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉20	Earrings	"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings," (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is best rendered as "amulets".[55] The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether amulets or earrings, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
19. Isaiah 3꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉22	Wimples	"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the wimples, and the crisping pins" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew word refers to a wide or flowing cloak. The English word used by the King James translators, wimple, is quite different: 'a garment of linen or silk formerly worn by women, so folded as to envelop the head, chin, sides of the face, and neck; now retained in the dress of nuns' (the first definition under the noun wimple in the Oxford English Dictionary)."[41]:219 The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a cloak or a wimple, (both items of clothing to cover and protect) it doesn't change the intent of the verse, which implies that the soon-to-be captive will be stripped naked literally by the Assyrians, and spiritually by their vulnerability to the pagan invaders.
20. Isaiah 3꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉22	Crisping pins	"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The modern-day equivalent of crisping pin would be curling iron. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags."[41]:216 Similar considerations apply as for "wimples" above. Whether they are seen as losing their fancy, well-coifed hair or their purses containing cosmetics or riches, the ironic fall of the daughters of Zion is graphically illustrated.
21. Isaiah 3꞉23 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉23	Glasses	"The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is best rendered as "papyrus garments" or "mirrors".[55] The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether glasses, papyrus garments, or mirrors, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. The irony is again thick in either case--if mirrors, then those who cannot see their spiritual state clearly will lose the mirrors in which they admire themselves in pride. If papyrus garments, these are delicate and easily stripped away by the Assyrians who will lead them into slavery--again, a dramatic type of shameful exposure to those so concerned about externals.
22. Isaiah 3꞉24 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉24	Rent	"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"There are two Hebrew verbs, both with identical consonants, but with different meanings: one means 'to tear' and the other means 'to go around or to surround'. The noun rent derives from the first verb, but the noun rope or cord (meaning to go around the body) derives from the second. Here the word girdle takes the archaic meaning 'belt'. Modern translators have typically rendered this line in Isaiah 3꞉24 as 'and instead of a belt, a rope.'"[41]:217 The intent of Isaiah is to contrast the former dignity and pride of the daughters of Zion with their current shame. Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, uncovering someone's nakedness was a way to make them feel shame (see, for example, Isaiah 47꞉3 which reflects this attitude) so keeping "rent" (i.e. cut/gap) where perhaps a person's belt line was would uncover someone's buttocks and genitals and is an appropriate way to make the contrast between current dignity and subsequent shame or lower social status. The intent of the passage is unaltered and correct.
23. Isaiah 3꞉24 ~ 2 Nephi 13꞉24	Stomacher	"and instead of a stomacher, a girding of sackcloth" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew word here, patigil, is otherwise unattested. The Greek Septuagint translated it as 'a tunic of mixed purple', which has led to the general translation of this article of clothing as 'a fine garment' or 'a rich robe'. Miles Coverdale, in his 5 Bible, translated it more specifically as stomacher, 'an ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice'."[41]:215 As the Hebrew remains uncertain, this can only be seen as a translation variant rather than error. The essential message of Isaiah in contrasting fine, luxurious things with things of lower social status and shame that await the future Assyrian captives remains unaffected.
24. Isaiah 4꞉5 ~ 2 Nephi 14꞉5	Defence	"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy".[56]: 322. Ture, "canopy" is in most popular English biblical translations. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per BDB, or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."[57] Similarly, Daniel C. Peterson, responded to this claim as follows in a 1993 review of an anti-Mormon book: In 2 Nephi 14꞉5, the Book of Mormon follows KJV Isaiah 4꞉5 in rendering the Hebrew chuppah as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent. Their reading of chuppah is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted Isaiah 4꞉5 in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as super omnem enim gloriam protectio. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has pase te doxe skepaslllcsetai, in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns skepas and skepc, both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy ... shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." The New Jerusalem Bible says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the New English Bible. The Evangelical Protestant New International Version says that the "canopy ... will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?[58] Thus, at best, there is no translation error here at all. At worst, it is a bit too broad of a translation.
25. Isaiah 5꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 15꞉2	Fenced	"And he fenced it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew verb for fenced in Isaiah 5꞉2 is now translated as 'to dig about' or 'to hoe or weed'; in other words, "he dug about it and cleared it of its stones."[41]:216 Critic David P. Wright derives basically the same analysis as Skousen.[42]:170 This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The verse here is a part of verses 1–7 that describe Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard. The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that it "allegorically portrays the Lord as Isaiah's friend ... who worked so hard to ensure a productive vineyard only to be disappointed when it yielded sour grapes. The allegory, which is explained only at the end, draws in the audience, as many in ancient Judah would have had extensive experience in vineyards. Its conclusion makes puns to make its point, viz., the Lord expects justice (Heb "mishpat") but sees only bloodshed (Heb "mispah") and hopes for righteousness (Heb "tsedaqah") only to hear a cry (Heb "tse'aqah)."[48]:986n1–7 "The 1828 Webster[59] notes that the word fence means 'a wall, hedge, ditch,' the third example fitting well with the modern renderings."[52] The KJV translators may have meant to say that the Lord allegorically protected the vineyard by fencing it with a ditch. (Or earth/stones dug from the ditch are then piled as a barrier on the edge of the ditch, combining the images.) The Oxford English Dictionary notes that, at its broadest, "to fence" meant simply to put up a type of barrier at the time of the King James Version's translation. Thus there are examples of writers from the 17th century saying, for instance, "The lands of [private] men..were fenced with ditches." This usage fits into the Book of Mormon's and KJV's usage. Other examples of writings from the 17th century say that you can fence with a battlement, walls, iron armor, shells, and so forth. To fence was to simply put up a type of barrier.
26. Isaiah 5꞉17 ~ 2 Nephi 15꞉17	Then shall the lambs feed after their manner	"Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."[42]:170 The passage is contrasting the type of success one can have with the Lord and the grave misfortune one can have when one does not follow the Lord. The previous verse to this (v.16) begins that contrast. The intent of the passage is to say that lambs shall return to their normal feeding. Thus saying that they return to their old pasture to feed and saying that they'll feed "after their manner" is really not a substantive change in meaning. The author judges this as a translation variant rather than an error. Even if the image shifts slightly, it is inconsequential.
27. Isaiah 5꞉25 ~ 2 Nephi 15꞉25	Carcases	"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets."[42]:170 This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.[60] These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah. This appears an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing.
28. Isaiah 5꞉25 ~ 2 Nephi 15꞉25	Were torn	"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets."[42]:170 To say that the corpses "were torn" in the midst of the streets does leave ambiguity since "were torn" could refer to people or perhaps animals actively tearing up dead human remains in the streets or, alternatively, it could refer to the dead bodies already being torn up in the streets. "Refuse" refers to trash. To say that their corpses were torn in the streets is functionally the same thing as saying that they're refuse. Regarding "torn", Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon...if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means 'cut of' or 'torn off'; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean 'as offal.'"[57] In either case, the sense of horror to an Israelite audience would be profound, who would be troubled both by the desecration of a body if it were torn by scavangers and by the fact that the dead lay in the street, unburied. A proper burial was vital in the ancient world, and not receiving it was regarded as a terrible fate.
29. Isaiah 5꞉30 ~ 2 Nephi 15꞉30	And the light is darkened in the heavens thereof	"And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."[42]:170 Whether the light is darkened in the sky or by clouds, the intent of the verse isn't changed. (And what in the sky, one wonders, would darken light if not clouds?)
30. Isaiah 6꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 16꞉2	It	"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "above him" (referring to the Lord in v. 1) instead of "above it" (which would be referring to the train of his garment in v. 1).[42]:170 Though it's uncertain if saying that the angel standing above the garment train is a denial that the angel stood above God.
31. Isaiah 6꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 16꞉2	Seraphims	"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The current edition of the Book of Mormon just has seraphim without the s. Skousen's earliest reconstruction of the verses as well as the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon have "seraphims".[49]:114 Under a certain perspective, a more correct translation of these verses would indeed render it as only "seraphim" and not "seraphims" with an s. That is because the suffix -im in Hebrew already indicates that the object is pluralized. Though one could argue that there really is no error in translation given that the KJV translators were just using English conventions in order to assure readers that the object was pluralized. Consider the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, for instance, that said that the plural of seraph could be seraphs.[61]
32. Isaiah 6꞉6 ~ 2 Nephi 16꞉6	Seraphims	"Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The same analysis as applies to the "error" in 2 Nephi 16꞉2 in the previous entry. One anti-mormon used a similar argument in claiming that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was in error by using the word "cherubims" from the KJV.[62] The same reasoning applies against his claim. Consider the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, for instance, that said that the plural of cherub could be cherubs.[63]
33. Isaiah 6꞉13 ~ 2 Nephi 16꞉13	Whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.	"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."[42]:219n48. Though the verse retains the substance of meaning proposed by the critic. The verse means to communicate that "[a] part of Israel would return, and like the oak and terebinth, which though they are eaten or consumed right to their substance or stumps, yet they possess a seed in them that can regenerate."[64]:367 "Despite the horrific imagery of a mere ten-percent survival rate (tenth part), the account concludes with a hopeful image of new growth from the ravaged stump that will constitute the holy seed of restoration (see Ezra 9꞉2)."[48]:989n11–13 Is saying that the "substance" of the tree remains really a denial of the stump/stock being that substance? Are the rhetorical goals of the verse not accomplished by changing "stock/stump" to "substance"? It could be seen as the tree's "vital force" or "substance" hidden within and life apparently gone, but awaiting the chance to burst forth anew.
34. Isaiah 7꞉14 ~ 2 Nephi 17꞉14	Virgin	"Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	This passage in Isaiah 7꞉14 and its proper translation is one of the most contested in all of scripture. The verses have been crucial for Christians who want to support Matthew's use of the passage in his Gospel to theologically support the notion that the Savior would be born of Mary, who was a virgin. Jews and the majority of biblical scholars contend, and not without merit, that the proper translation of the verse is to have merely "young woman" instead of "virgin". What's more, Christians have needed to contend that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment since the verses could be referring to a son of Ahaz that would be named Immanuel in context. Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki. The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.[65] Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (ʿalmah), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. Gen 24꞉43). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.[66] There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues. It should be remembered that one of the reasons that Isaiah 7꞉14 and 2 Nephi 7꞉14 retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary (1 Nephi 11꞉13, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted Isaiah 7꞉14 to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah.
35. Isaiah 7꞉15 ~ 2 Nephi 17꞉15	That	"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright assert that the logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the New Jerusalem Bible: "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."[42]:170 Certainly clarification of the logic is preferable here, but the rhetorical goals of the verse are still accomplished given this translation, and there are no grave errors as constructed.
36. Isaiah 7꞉23 ~ 2 Nephi 17꞉23	Silverlings	"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew here literally reads 'a thousand of silver', where the presumed measure of weight is the shekel. The Greek Septuagint translated this phrase as 'a thousand shekels'. The use of silverlings in the English translation originated with Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible. The English word silvering was chosen because it was morphologically analyzed as a silver + ling, but its value was not the same as a shekel's."[41]:215 The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
37. Isaiah 7꞉25 ~ 2 Nephi 17꞉25	Mattock	"and all the hills that shall be digged with the mattock" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"This is a tool that in the Hebrew is based on the verb meaning 'to pick' or 'to hoe'. The English mattock refers to a tool that is more specific than simply a pick or a hoe."[41]:215 The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
38. Isaiah 8꞉1 ~ 2 Nephi 18꞉1	Man's pen	"Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts the better translation is "common/ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."[42]:219n48. The concern here is over "man" and what the significance of saying "a man's pen" is. It's certainly not clear enough to communicate that Isaiah means that the pen is common or average. But it's also not erroneous.
39. Isaiah 8꞉6 ~ 2 Nephi 18꞉6	Rejoice	"Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation "may be" "but melt (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son."[42]:170 Experts affirm that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.[48]:991nC Most modern, popular, English biblical translations have "rejoice" instead of "melt in fear". Either translation works and makes enough sense in historical context. The Lord merely means to express his "dissatisfaction with Ahaz's refusal to accept the divine offer of protection."[48]:991n5-8 The Lord does not want Judah to associate with with Rezin and Pekah. Those that do associate themselves reject the offer and "rejoice" in Rezin and Pekah by gladly joining them in their quest to defend against the incoming invasion of the Assyrians. The Contemporary English Version (2000) translates this verse as "These people have refused the gentle waters of Shiloah and have gladly gone over to the side of King Rezin and King Pekah." This captures the spirit of what is meant to be "rejoicing" in Rezin and Pekah. Though one could also translate it as "melt in fear" and say that the people join Rezin and Pekah because of fear of them. At worst, "rejoice" is merely a translation variant; and at best, it's an entirely correct translation and "melt in fear" is in error.
40. Isaiah 8꞉12 ~ 2 Nephi 18꞉12	All them	"Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts the better translation is "...to all that this people calls a confederacy/conspiracy."[42]:171 The Book of Mormon omits the "them" from Isaiah 8꞉12 and just has "say ye not a confederacy to all to whom this people shall say a confederacy". The Book of Mormon's sentence construction doesn't change substantively from Wright' proposal.
41. Isaiah 8꞉19-20 ~ 2 Nephi 18꞉19-20	To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them	"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they shall speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub v. 18 | Bible Hub v. 20)	Wright asserts that the Hebrew is obscure and that the KJV and Book of Mormon translation are also obscure. He asks us to compare the following modern translation "And should people say to you, 'Go and consult ghosts and wizards that whisper and mutter'–a people should certainly consult its gods and the dead on behalf of the living! As regards instruction and testimony, without doubt this is how they will talk, and hence there will be no dawn for them" (New Jerusalem Bible).[42]:171 The current edition of the Book of Mormon reads as follows (differences from KJV bolded): "And when they shall say unto you: Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter—should not a people seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead? To the law and to the testimony; and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So the only real differences to which Wright draws our eye is the KJV/BoM's bad (?) translation of "to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". This can only be considered a translation variant and not an error on Wright's theory (if indeed the Hebrew is obscure). But the Book of Mormon and KJV likely capture the better sense of the verse.
42. Isaiah 8꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 18꞉22	And; and they shall be driven	"And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This in part of an essay dedicated to KJV errors in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society) and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (New Jerusalem Bible).[42]:171 Most modern, popular, English biblical translations render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is confirmed uncertain by scholar Marvin Sweeney.[48]:991nC Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage is not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people to not practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel (Isaiah 19꞉3; Leviticus 19꞉31; Deuteronomy 18꞉10-11). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or that they look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference. This again looks like straining to find fault.
43. Isaiah 9꞉1 ~ 2 Nephi 19꞉1	Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation	"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "For if there were to be any break of day for that [land] which is in straits" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society); "But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish" (Revised Standard Version); and "For is not everything dark as night for a country in distress" (New Jerusalem Bible).[42]:219n48. It seems that the substantive meaning of the verse is not changed from Wright's proposals. The verse simply means that the dimness or gloom will not be like it was when these nations mentioned were distressed or vexed.
44. Isaiah 9꞉1 ~ 2 Nephi 19꞉1	Grievously afflict	"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The better translation is "but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan".[41]:216 The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in Isaiah 9꞉1. It reads: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." 2 Nephi 19꞉1 reads: "Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict her by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." Thus, the Book of Mormon makes the verse refer to the Red Sea. Critics have made fun of the Book of Mormon for this and leveled other criticisms. See here and [[Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19꞉1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?|here]] for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen. We now must ask—could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on his own situation or experience? We know that there were modifications done by Nephi to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on his own situation that Nephi calls "likening" (1 Nephi 19꞉23). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula. Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" (Numbers 14꞉25; Numbers 21꞉4; Deuteronomy 1꞉40; 2꞉1). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.[50]:732–33 Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least his best reconstruction of it).[49]:119 Again, Nephi was "likening" Isaiah to his current situation and understanding all throughout the Book of Mormon quotations of Isaiah by changing text (1 Nephi 19꞉23). It's likely that something similar is going on here. This may thus be an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively liken the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. Tthe intent of the verse is changed and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah's original text meant. But it isn’t an error regarding what Nephi meant to communicate about God. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error.
45. Isaiah 9꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 19꞉2	Shadow of death	"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the Hebrew term almäwet which this verse translates should be simply "darkness." It is not connected with the term mäwet "death."[42]:171 More than a few modern, popular, English biblical translations render this verse with "the land of the shadow of death". The verse merely "symbolizes the mortal world where there is darkness, and death."[64]:374 Whether saying "the land of darkness", "the land of the shadow of death", or something close to it, the meaning or referent is still the same: the mortal, fallen world/earth.
46. Isaiah 9꞉5 ~ 2 Nephi 19꞉5	For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise	"For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "For every boot that tramps with noise/in battle."[42]:171 Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon changes this verse to read "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood—but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."[49]:119 The verse concerns imminent military oppression. "Military oppression is symbolized by the yoke (10.27; 14.25), the bar (10.24), the rod (10.24; 14.4; Gen 49꞉10), and trampling boots."[48]:993n4–5 The "confused noise" of the battle could be correctly interpreted as the trampling boots. Regardless, Isaiah means to say that the military oppressors will be overthrown and that the oppression will be fuel for fire. The reader can still come to the accurate conclusion that all of it—the battles with confused noise and the garments rolled in blood—will be burned. The details are different; the message is the same.
47. Isaiah 10꞉4 ~ 2 Nephi 20꞉4	Without me	"Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the KJV's translation is "doubtful". The better translation is supposedly "so that they do not cower among the prisoners" (Revised English Bible); "Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners" (Revised Standard Version).[42]:171 The verse is meant to merge with the rhetorical question of the previous verse which reads (New Revised Standard Version) "To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain?" The verse can still make sense as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon, since the verse simply means to say that "[d]uring the day of visitation the wicked will fall in the destruction or become prisoners with other captives."[64]:376–37 The without me can then function as the Lord saying "without my intervention and aid, these people will have to crouch among prisoners or die". Meaning has changed but not significantly.
48. Isaiah 10꞉15 ~ 2 Nephi 20꞉15	As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood	"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."[42]:171 The verses concern the Lord declaring his superior power against the Assyrians. The Lord uses the imagery of an axe and saw and essentially says that they can't declare their superiority over the one who wields them. The verses still accomplish their rhetorical goals. The detail has changed, the intent has not.
49. Isaiah 10꞉18 ~ 2 Nephi 20꞉18	As when a standardbearer fainteth	"And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics assert that the better translation is something like "and it will be as when a sick man wastes away," "and it will be as when a weak person despairs," or "and it will be as when someone falls in a fit."[42]:219n48.[47] Most translations have something like the first suggestion. Though at least three modern, popular, English biblical translations carry something like "as when a standard-bearer faints". The superior translation clearly seems to be "when a sick man wastes away" since the verse is trying to describe how the Lord "destroys both soul and body as well as that man's 'forest and fruitful field'." The verse may still work with "standard-bearer faints", however. Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers notes that "[t]he 'standard-bearer' was chosen for his heroic strength and stature. When he 'fainted' and gave way, what hope was there that others would survive? A more correct rendering, however, gives As a sick man pineth away." Similarly, Pulpit Commentary notes that "[u]tter prostration and exhaustion is indicated, whichever way the passage is translated."
50. Isaiah 10꞉27 ~ 2 Nephi 20꞉27	The anointing	And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is something like "the yoke shall be destroyed because of fatness." He asserts that some emend the text of the masoretic text of Isaiah (the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have) since it doesn't make clear sense.[42]:172 Most modern, popular, English biblical translations agree with the critic though some retain a reference to an anointing with oil. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "because of oil".[64]:378 The best way to translate that Hebrew and expand it into a more coherent idea is still uncertain. Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The essential message of this passage is that the yoke of Assyria's oppression against Israel will be taken off. Different translations use different imagery that are compatible with that essential message. With fatness, the yoke will be taken off or fall off of Israel because they have become fat and the yoke is too small. The Douay-Rheims translation of this verse makes the imagery mean that the oil will rot off the yoke. Anointing is typically associated with ordaining someone to success. Thus, with the translation as it stands in the KJV and Book of Mormon, perhaps the imagery can be that God has ordained or anointed Israel to be successful before her enemies and thus the yoke will be destroyed because of God's protection of Israel. Thus, given different translations, the detail certainly changes, but the essential meaning does not.
51. Isaiah 11꞉3 ~ 2 Nephi 21꞉3	Make him of quick understanding	"And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics assert that the underlying Hebrew translated as "make him of quick understanding" is "unclear" but "probably" doesn't mean "make him of quick understanding". The better translation is "probably" something like "He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society); "And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord" (New American Bible).[42]:172[47] The chapter speaks about a coming Messiah. The majority of popular, English biblical translations render this passage as the second suggestion from the critic. The gist of the verse as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon is that the Messiah will be filled with great knowledge—though arguably in context one would only be said to be genuinely of quick understanding if one feared God and obeyed him. Thus "reverence for the Lord" is the best evidence of "quick understanding." The true wisdom and genius, we might say, is in knowing to obey God, and not simply because one quickly master's man's learning or priorities.
52. Isaiah 11꞉15 ~ 2 Nephi 21꞉15	Dry-shod	"he shall. . .make men go over dry-shod" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The past participial phrase dry-shod is equivalent to the adverbial phrase 'with dry shoes'. Here the Hebrew as well as the Greek and the Latin translations simply use the phrase 'in sandals', without any reference to getting one's sandals wet."[41]:215 The adverbial phrase still makes sense in context, however. The whole verse in Isaiah 11꞉15 reads as follows: "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod." Scholars recognize that this is an allusion to the Exodus when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with dry feet.[48]:997n15 This is at best a variant, and it may make explicit what the ancient readers would have understood implicitly.
53. Isaiah 13꞉12 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉12	Wedge	"I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The better translation is "more precious. . .than the gold of Ophir".[41]:218 Regardless of the translation, the essence is that a man is being made more precious than piece of gold from Ophir. No significant alteration in meaning.
54. Isaiah 13꞉14 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉14	Roe	"and it shall be as the chased roe" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"In English, a roe is a species of small deer. The word in the Hebrew refers to a gazelle. The word gazelle entered English in the late 1500s and early 1600s and would not have been readily available to the King James translators. All the earlier English translations, dating back to Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible, had the phrase chased doe rather than chased roe."[41]:215 Both the gazelle and roe—speedy hooved herbivores often hunted—work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
55. Isaiah 13꞉15 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉15	That is joined	"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation is "who are caught/captured".[42]:172 The verse intends to create a type of parallelism between the first and second clauses. It doesn't seem to be a substantive shift in meaning to say that all who are caught will be killed and all who are joined to the people who are caught will be killed. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon changes "found" in Isaiah 13꞉15 to read "proud" and substitutes "the wicked" for "them" such that the verse reads "[e]very one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword."
56. Isaiah 13꞉21 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉21	Satyrs	"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Hebrew word here in the singular is sa'ir, which in the Hebrew refers to hairy demons or monsters that inhabit the deserts. This word has been incorrectly translated into its phonetically similar Greek word satyr, which refers to a woodland god that is half-human and half-beast."[41]:218 No significant change in meaning. The vast majority of popular English biblical translations render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or satyrs (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures). The intent of the verse is to communicate that Babylon will be made desolate and no man shall live there. Instead, animals will infest their lands and inhabit them. No significant change in intent.
57. Isaiah 13꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉22	Wild beasts	"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast", "jackal", or "hyena".[47] The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.[67] There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts".[42]:172 The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is at best not erroneous at all and at worst just too broad. Certainly there is no shift away from the intent of the passage. This too looks like straining to find fault.
58. Isaiah 13꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉22	Of the islands	"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright asserts that the better translation would be to omit "of the islands" and render it simply "wild/desert beasts" or specifically "jackals" or "hyenas."[42]:172 The verse concerns the Lord's/Isaiah's prediction that Babylon will revert to its primitive condition when it is overthrown. Whether "hyenas" or "wild beasts of the islands" crying in the towers of Babylon does not matter or changee the intent of the verse.
59. Isaiah 13꞉22 ~ 2 Nephi 23꞉22	Dragons	"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Runnells asserts that the better translation would be to replace "dragons" with "jackals".[47] The majority of popular English biblical translations render this verse with "jackals" instead of dragons though at least one modern, popular translation keep dragons. "Dragon" could refer to merely a snake at the time of the King James translation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.[68] One places "hedgehogs" here and another "wild dogs". We can make similar commentary here as we did for the "of the islands" error. The verses concern a reversion of Babylon to a primitive, uncivilized, even dangerous condition when the Lord desolates it. Whether jackals or dragons in the palaces, it doesn't really matter. The verses are meant to depict the desolated and grim condition of Babylon after the Lord ravages it. Details have changed, the underlying imagery and intent has not.
60. Isaiah 14꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉2	Handmaids	"And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Skousen says that "[i]n this verse the sense of handmaid is 'a female slave', especially since the paired noun servant means 'a male slave'. In biblical contexts, handmaid usually means 'a female personal servant', but not here."[41]:216 But a handmaid in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary understands a handmaid to be a "maid that waits at hand; a female servant or attendant." Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary notes that the main usage of handmaid is to refer to "[a] female personal attendant or servant."[69] Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. Popular biblical translations more contemporary to the 1800s as well as two more modern translations render it as "handmaids".
61. Isaiah 14꞉4 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉4	Golden city	"And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden city ceased!" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Skousen claims that the better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the assaulting ceased".[41]:216 Critic David P. Wright asserts that the KJV translation is "doubtful" and that the translation should "probably" be "boisterous behavior, frenzy, [or] arrogance".[42]:172 This is Isaiah's taunt song against Babylon. Calling Babylon "the golden city" that is laid down and humbled is a great way to taunt Babylon given that Isaiah would then be contrasting their former glory with their current misery. Five other biblical translations (two of which are modern and three much older) render it as "golden city". Scholar Seth Erlandson makes a compelling case for translating this passage as "golden city".[70] Given that "golden city", "assaulting", and "boisterous behavior, frenzy, or arrogance" would all be referring to Babylon ceasing or Babylon's action ceasing, this isn't a translation error at all. The meaning or referent does not change no matter which way the verse is translated! At best we have no error. At worst we have a translation variant.
62. Isaiah 14꞉5 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉5	Scepter	"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the rod of the rulers".[41]:218 But the vast majority of popular, English biblical translations render this verse with "scepter" or "sceptre" instead of rod. Either way, it does not seem that the essential object being referred to nor the ethical message change. In Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (the best reconstruction of the original words dictated by Joseph Smith), the text reads "scepters" in the plural.[49]:127 This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text—a sceptre represents the rod of force or correction used by a sovereign to rule. This is a distinction without a difference, though KJV translators would have been more familiar with the more fancy and elaborate sceptre compared to the simple rod.
63. Isaiah 14꞉12 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉12	Weaken	"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground which did weaken the nations!" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"There are two meanings for this verb in the Hebrew: one means 'to weaken', the other 'to defeat or to lay prostrate'. In this context, the second of these works better and is the one adopted in modern translations, such as the English Standard Version: 'How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!'"[41]:218 The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. Eight other popular English biblical translations (six of which are modern) render this verse as "weaken".
64. Isaiah 14꞉29 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉29	Cockatrice	"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The cockatrice is a mythical serpent with a deadly glance that is hatched by a reptile from a cock's egg. However, the Hebrew word here is based on a verb meaning 'to hiss' and simply refers to a viper or adder."[41]:215 This verse provides "imagery explaining that while an oppressor of the Philistines may perish, another, more severe will follow." It's "a metaphor suggesting that Philistia's next oppressor (the cockatrice or deadly viper) will somehow be related to its first (the serpent or snake), perhaps a descendant."[64]:388 Either a cockatrice or viper/adder can accomplish the rhetorical goals of the verse. Some might think that a cockatrice is somehow more powerful than a fiery flying serpent. That may be the case. Who exactly knows the power differentials that Philistia's next oppressors would have? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem, which the Assyrians never managed to do. around 587 BC. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "Sargon put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.[48]:p.1001n14.28–32 Or, alternatively, the Philistines may have considered themselves oppressed by the Assyrians, and so revolted. But, whatever they thought of the oppression that led to their revolt, it was nothing compared to the brutal treatment they would receive from Sargon II when he arrived to beseige their land to reassert his control.
65. Isaiah 14꞉29 ~ 2 Nephi 24꞉29	Fiery flying serpent	"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The correct rendition of the Hebrew for Isaiah 14꞉29 should be 'a flying fiery serpent'. The compound fiery serpent is represented in the Hebrew by a single word saraf, which comes from the verb saraf 'to burn'; here we have a flying serpent whose sting burns (in other words, 'a flying poisonous serpent')."[41]:216 Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. Five other popular, English biblical translations (two of which are modern) render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
66. Isaiah 29꞉16 ~ 2 Nephi 27꞉27	Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay	"And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critic David P. Wright claims that a better translation would be: "How perverse of you! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one that formed it, 'He has no creative intelligence?'"[42]:172 Wright is correct that this verse's translation changes the meaning of the original text significantly. Isaiah means to use a metaphor that "shows the foolishness of mortals who pretend to be mightier than their Creator (cf. D&C 10꞉5-34)."[64]:391 As currently rendered in the Book of Mormon, the verse means that the wicked who hide their works in darkness are telling God that His "turning of things upside down" will be esteemed as the potter's clay. The "turning of things upside down" might refer to God threatening to humble the mighty and powreful by sending them into slavery. (Compare the daughters of Zion verses which are full of ironic contrasts between the glamorous, worldly daughters before and after their captivity.) Here the wicked are so arrogant that they dismiss God's ability to cause a revolution in their comfortable lives. But this is as foolish, says the Book of Mormon's rendition, as a clay pot thinking that the potter cannot throw it back into the clay for destruction and remixing into something new if he decides to. The Book of Mormon, in line with the translation outlined by Wright, already teaches us that God is all-searching and all-wise.[71]
67. Isaiah 29꞉21 ~ 2 Nephi 27꞉32	Reproveth	"And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The verb reprove is used four times in the Book of Mormon, all in biblical quotes. The King James use of reprove adds a negative sense that is not in the Hebrew original. In all cases, the neutral verb 'judge' would be a more appropriate translation."[41]:217 Twelve other popular, English biblical translations (only two of which are modern) render this verse similar to how the Book of Mormon and King James Version do. The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that the judge at the city gates actually will reprove those who receive the negative side of his judgements. To be found guilty or liable in a court is always an implicit reproof of behavior. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove—indeed, one cannot do one without the other. One arbitrates by finding who is in the right and who in the wrong, and arranging a settlement of disparate interests. If one side gets everything they want, the other is reproved. If neither side gets everything they want, there is an implicit reproof of some aspect of both their conduct, and their inability to resolve the matter themselves.
68. 1 John 5꞉7 ~ 2 Nephi 31꞉21	The potential presence of the Johannine Comma in 2 Nephi 31꞉21	"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub)	This one is considered a stretch even by the scholar with whom the author corresponded. The passages from 1 John 5꞉7 and 2 Nephi 31꞉21 just don't line up like the critics might want them to.
69. Exodus 20꞉13 ~ Mosiah 13꞉21	Kill	"Thou shalt not kill." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Some have said that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of the word "kill" here is incorrect and that one should have "murder" instead. There's a complex discussion to be had regarding proper translation that can be found, in part, here. Nevertheless, these debates would have been of little moment to the Book of Mormon's audience, who understood that the command against killing referred to murder, and not to some other forms of death dealing (e.g., self defense, judicial punishment, or lawful warfare).
70. Isaiah 53꞉8 ~ Mosiah 14꞉8	He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?	"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Wright thinks that the first phrase might be rendered as the KJV has it though many moderns translate it as "by oppression and judgment he was taken away" (New International Version).[42]:219n48. The second phrase, the critic tells us, is obscure in the Hebrew. It has been rendered variously: "who could consider his stock/descendants," "who could consider his fate," "who could describe his abode," or "who could plead his cause." This can only be considered a translation variant. It is not ideal since "declaring a generation" isn't very clear in meaning, though it can plausibly be interpreted to include Wright's suggestions and especially the last one.
71. Matthew 23꞉37 ~ 3 Nephi 10꞉5	Chickens	"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	'CES Letter' asserts that this is a translation error.[47] The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks". This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."[72] The Oxford English Dictionary has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird".[73] This looks like seeking to find fault.
72. Matthew 5꞉15 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉15	Candle	"do men light a candle and put it under bushel?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, 'a small oil lamp."[41]:214 The intent of the passage is to use the metaphor of hiding a light when needed to guide towards goodness and truth. Both a candle and lamp can do that; the source of light is simply a question of culture. Even a translation as far from the original as "no one turns on their flashlight and then hides it under the bedclothes" would convey the same message.
73. Matthew 5꞉15 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉15	Candlestick	"nay, but on a candlestick" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)."[41]:214 The intent of the passage is to say that a person shouldn't hide their spiritual light but show it to others. Both a lamp/lampstand and candle/candlestick are effective imagery for communicating that message. See above discussion.
74. Matthew 5꞉27 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉27	By them of old time	"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Newer translations of the Bible, based on the earliest extant manuscripts, omit the phrase "by them of old time". But there is no significant change of meaning nor intent in the verse, and Jesus is quoting Exodus 20꞉14 and Deuteronomy 5꞉18. Those are certainly references to prophets "of old time" relevant to Jesus. Further, as Robert S. Boylan has observed, "While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase [translated as "by them of old time"] τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in Matt 5꞉21 and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either."[74] This cannot be considered an error. Only an evidence that the Book of Mormon has the King James Bible as its "base text" for translation. One critic takes this further and says that "by them of old time" is a mistranslation of the Greek tois archaiois. It is more properly rendered as "to them of old time" suggesting that God is the one that told the prophets "thou shalt not commit adultery".[21]:121 This is correct,[75] but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity, nor does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't retain its status as the "most correct book". The ethical message is the same: don't commit adultery and don't look on someone to lust after them. Whether it was said by the prophets of old (which is still correct) or to the prophets of old doesn't matter at all! If prophets speak the word of the Lord, anything they say to the people has alrady been said to them by God.
75. Matthew 5꞉30 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉30	Should be cast into hell	"And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Stan Larson asserts that this should read "that thy whole body should go into hell" instead of "be cast into hell". Larson asserts that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew support this reading.[21]:122 The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. Many popular English biblical translations (including a few modern translations) render this verse as "cast into hell" though the rest vary between saying "go into hell", "thrown into hell", "depart into hell", and "fall into hell" so, again, the essential intent of the verse is retained no matter the translation.
76. Matthew 5꞉40 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉40	Coat	"if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"The Greek word for coat is chiton 'tunic', which actually refers to an inner garment worn under the coat, next to the skin, whereas the Greek word for cloak is himation, a more general word used to refer to an outer garment (such as a coat or a cloak)."[41]:214 "Jesus is saying that, if we are sued even for a trifling amount, rather than countersuing and ratcheting up the hostility, we should be willing to give up what is rightfully ours to defuse the situation."[76]
77. Matthew 5꞉44 ~ 3 Nephi 12꞉44	Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and ... which despitefully use you	"But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Newer translations based on earlier manuscripts do render things differently. The newer translations are more simple, something along the lines of "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you."[77] The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
78. Matthew 6꞉4 ~ 3 Nephi 13꞉4	Openly	"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The word "openly" in this verse is omitted in most modern, popular, English biblical translations. That the Lord will reward us openly is repeated in verses 6 and 18 of Matthew 6 and verses 6 and 18 of 3 Nephi 3. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek word αποδιδωμι (ah-poh-dih-doh-mee) while others don't.[78] Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it remains correct doctrine. Proverbs 10꞉22 says that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." 2 Corinthians 9꞉8 says that "God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work". In other words, God is able to bless us abundantly with riches and provisions so that we can continue to do good to others at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"? Thus this is either a case where there is no translation error at all or there is an intelligible type change in intent.
79. Matthew 6꞉13 ~ 3 Nephi 13꞉13	Temptation	"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	One critic claims that "temptation" should be rendered as "the time of trial".[79] The majority of popular, academic, modern, English biblical translations, however, disagree with the author. Further, "the time of trial" is "temptation". To "tempt" someone is "to put them to the test," or to have a "trial" of their strength or character. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "tempt" as "In Scripture', to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof."[80] Webster also regards "temptation" as meaning "trial," and even includes this precise phrase ("Lead us not into temptation") as an illustration.[81] The critic is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word, and sees fault where there is none.
80. Matthew 6꞉13 ~ 3 Nephi 13꞉13	Evil	"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	One critic claims that "evil" should be rendered as "the evil one".[79] Evil is personified in "the evil one." Satan was seen as the ultimate source of all evil; to be delivered from him was to be delievered from evil, and vice-versa. At most this is a variant.
81. Matthew 6꞉13 ~ 3 Nephi 13꞉13	For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen	"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Critics believe that this verse, known as the doxology, was not original to Jesus; that Jesus didn't actually say this. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain these phrases. The inclusion of the doxology in 3 Nephi 13꞉13 is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See: here. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. The doxology is probably based on a reading of 1 Chronicles 29꞉10-11 which reads "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." Robert S. Boylan, citing John W. Welch, offered other important considerations that provide plausibility for the utterance of the doxology by Jesus.[82] Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz observed that "[t]he three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts." He then argued that 2 Timothy 4꞉18 and Didache 8:2 "show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology."[83]
82. Matthew 6꞉28 ~ 3 Nephi 13꞉28	Lillies	"consider the lilies of the field" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"Here the Greek word krinon, modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower."[41]:215 The verses are meant to suggest that the birds of the air, flowers of the field, and other things do not worry about the span of their lives nor worry about what they're going to eat to survive and yet the Lord provides for them. The intent of the verse is unchanged.:215
83. Matthew 7꞉2 ~ 3 Nephi 14꞉2	Again	"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of 3 Nephi 14꞉2 is erroneous.[21]:123 John W. Welch responded as follows in the FARMS Review: "Example 3 concerns the difference between 'measured to you' (which appears in older Matthean texts) and "measured to you again" (which appears in KJV Matthew 7꞉2 and 3 Nephi 14꞉2). Larson says that I 'downplay the difference among the variants at Matthew 7꞉2' (p. 123). He does not say, however, why I find the difference to be negligible. The difference is over the presence or absence of the Greek prefix anti- (English again). I believe that 'with or without this prefix on the verb, the sentence means exactly the same thing.'[84] Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.'[84] Larson tries to salvage his point by arguing that 'it can usually (but not always) be shown what Greek text the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions were based upon' and 'it is often such fine distinctions that are clues in textual criticism' (p. 123). But if one were to imagine a world in which no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament existed, scholars would not stake their reputations on claiming to know for sure (given the clear sense of the passage) whether antimetrethesetai or metrethesetai stood behind an English translation that renders Matthew 7꞉2 as 'measured again.' Similarly, one cannot be sure what Aramaic verb originally was used here or what version of a Nephite verb stood on the plates of Mormon behind the translation 'measured again.' In light of the fact that Luke 6꞉38 contains the word antimetrethesetai ('measured again'), is there any reason not to believe that early Christians used the words antimetrethesetai and metrethesetai interchangeably? Larson has not shown that this is one of those cases where one can determine from the translation what the underlying text was, or that this is one of those 'fine distinctions' of textual analysis (because there is virtually no distinction in meaning here). If no difference exists, Larson has not proved that 3 Nephi 14꞉2 is in error."[85] John Gee and Royal Skousen also address these issues for those who want to learn more.[86]
84. Isaiah 52꞉15 ~ 3 Nephi 20꞉45	Sprinkle	"So he shall sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	The Hebrew verb for sprinkle doesn't make much sense in context here. Other translations have made this verse something like "the nations shall marvel upon him". Joseph Smith in his "New Translation" of the Bible replaced sprinkle with gather, showing the difficulty of rendering this verse.[41]:218 Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. The majority of popular, English biblical translations render it as "sprinkle". Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew.[48]:1051nB If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation error. At worst, it can only be a translation variant. The question really becomes, if the verse is translated as "sprinkle", sprinkle with what? And how will that sprinkling be part of what causes kings to shut their mouths in the Lord's presence?
85. Micah 5꞉14 ~ 3 Nephi 21꞉18	Groves	"And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)	"Here the noun grove is used to refer to a sacred grove used for cultic rites. However, the original Hebrew in these passages refers to Asherim, that is, wooden images of the Canaanite goddess Asherah."[41]:217 Given that "groves" refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah: that idolatry is wrong (Mosiah 13꞉12-13) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. Four other popular, English biblical translations (only one modern) render this verse as "groves". It's difficult to see this even as a mistranslation, since the wooden images were conceptually trees or groves anyway. Some scholars believe that they actually were trees sometimes: These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that asherim [the wooden images] were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel).[87] "Grove" may in fact give more nuance and depth to the ideas being conveyed. It is certainly not a mistranslation or misleading rendering.
86. Isaiah 54꞉11-12 ~ 3 Nephi 22꞉11-12	Stones and architectural details mentioned	"O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub v. 11 | Bible Hub v. 12)	Critic David P. Wright curiously claims that "the meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV cannot be considered accurate." He asks us to compare the Revised English Bible: "Storm-battered city, distressed and desolate, now I shall set your stones in the finest mortar and lay your foundations with sapphires; I shall make your battlements of red jasper and your gates of garnet; all your boundary stones will be precious jewels."[42]:173 So the main differences are to substitute "finest mortar" for "fair colours", "battlements" for "windows", "red jasper" for "agates", and "garnet" for "carbuncle". Carbuncle is garnet so that complaint doesn't make much sense. A battlement is a type of window so it likewise doesn't make much sense to fuss over it. Agate is similar to jasper. The overall intent of the passage is to state that "[t]he new Jerusalem is adorned with precious stones and gems by builders supernaturally instructed; cf. Ezekiel 28꞉13-19. Christian apocalyptic literature draws on this imagery to describe the new Jerusalem (Rev 21꞉18-21)."[48]:1053n11–17
87. Mark 16꞉15-18 ~ Mormon 9꞉22-24; Ether 4꞉18	Longer ending of Mark in the books of Mormon and Ether	"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub v. 15 | Bible Hub v. 16 | Bible Hub v. 17 | Bible Hub v. 18)	See our commentary on this issue here.
88. 1 Corinthians 13꞉1 ~ Moroni 7꞉47	The use of "charity" in Moroni 7, relying upon the KJV rendering of "agape". Apparently it should just be rendered "love".	"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub)	It's difficult to know exactly how passages like Moroni 7꞉47 would be translated. There we learn that "charity is the pure love of Christ". Should we translate that passage as "love is the pure love of Christ"? Or "agape is the pure love of Christ"? Maybe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be a substantive improvement on just retaining "charity" in the verse, especially for a Christianized 19th century audience.

Summary of conclusions

For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:

• Some cases aren't errors.
• Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
• In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the diachronic nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue". They meant to refer to something like power and we mean to refer to something like strength in doing moral good or sometimes chastity.
• In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with Isaiah 6꞉2 and 6꞉6 (and corresponding passages in 2 Nephi 16꞉2 and 16꞉6 in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple seraph(s). The problem is that the suffix -im in Hebrew already pluralizes the word seraph. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
• In some cases, the errors are merely translation variants (rather than errors) where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
• In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be too broad or general rather than necessarily erroneous. It’s like saying that "king" refers to royalty. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
• In some cases, the translation errors are legitimately errors. These errors thus change the meaning of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall intent of the passages.
• In some cases, the errors actually do lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding. In some cases, the intent is changed from the clear, original intent of the biblical authors to an equally clear message that is not necessarily in line with the original author's intent. We'll term this type of change of intent the intelligible type. In other cases, the original intent is changed to an unintelligible message. We'll term this type of change of the intent the unintelligible type.

In the case of an intelligible type, we can show that the Book of Mormon both confirms the intent of the original biblical author and the truth of the message of the text as currently constituted in the Book of Mormon in other passages within the Book of Mormon. In the case of the unintelligible type, we can confirm that the intent of the original biblical author is already communicated clearly in other parts of the Book of Mormon.

• In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.

In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise compels a reader into believing something false.

Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."^[41]:214 The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by seven critics of the Book of Mormon.^{[21][88][42][47][89][90][56][79]}

This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.^[91] These lists include exactly 88 items.^[92]

As a reminder, these tables contain links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com in order to refute the 'CES Letter's contention above that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.

We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors". The tables below include the errors' location in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider using a similar approach taken by the author of this article to resolve concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at this link.

3. Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?

All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."^[93]

We have some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. The Lord speaks to his servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants (Doctrine & Covenants 1꞉24). That same idea is confirmed in 2 Nephi 31꞉3. He can even use error for his own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation". The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to u—the Lord accommodates his perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Joseph Smith quoted from Malachi 4꞉5-6 in Doctrine and Covenants 128꞉17-18. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."^[94] Joseph Smith is comfortable with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% perfect in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.

The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a loose translation versus tight translation.)

Conclusion

The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation. Here is something interesting that Brigham Young taught:

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.^[95]

Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. The Latter-day Saints have never been scriptural inerrantists. It is the message and the messenger that matter, not the precise words.

Notes

1. ↑ B. H. Roberts, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era no. 9 (April 1906), 435–436.
2. ↑ B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
3. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Conference Report (April 1930), 47.
4. ↑ B. H. Roberts, “Protest Against the Science-Thought of a ‘Dying Universe’ and no Immortality for Man: The Mission of the Church of the New Dispensation,” delivered SLC Tabernacle, Sunday, 23 January 1932; reproduced in Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy, compiled by Ben E. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948), 11–30.
5. ↑ FAIR thanks Stephen O. Smoot for his research on this topic. The following will be text taken entirely from Stephen O. Smoot, "B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: Exhumation and Reburial," Ploni Almoni, August 11, 2020, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/08/b-h-roberts-and-the-book-of-mormon-exhumation-and-reburial.html.
6. ↑ Truman G. Madsen, "B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Authorship (1982).
7. ↑ Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, chapter 14
8. ↑ See A. Melvin McDonald, Day of Defense (Sounds of Zion Inc., 1986; 2004), 49.
9. ↑ These were the only editions consulted for this point. More editions may render the same however the author did not have access to them at this time.
10. ↑ See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon
11. ↑ See Michael Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193–196. (Key source)
12. ↑ See Book of Mormon note to 2 Nephi 12꞉2
13. ↑ See also See also Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism (Los Angeles, CA: The L. L. Company, 1981), 70–72.
14. ↑ The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.
15. ↑ Wikipedia, "Thomson's Translation," <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_Translation> (11 February 2015).
16. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 (emphasis added).
17. ↑ Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 10, 83. ( Index of claims ); Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 205. ( Index of claims ); La Roy Sunderland, "Mormonism," Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 7 (17 February 1838) off-site
18. ↑ The 'CES Letter', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text".
19. ↑ "History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; 1 Nephi 13꞉28; see 23-29. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.
20. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "translate."
21. ↑ ^{21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4} Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1993), 15-63.
22. ↑ Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the CES Letter. In editions past 2013, he links to an old version of a Wikipedia page (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson.
    
    A similar argument to Runnells' is made in Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 10. ( Index of claims ). Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, separately, that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV italics is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition.
    
    Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation variations (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors?
    
    Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the 1611 (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, as well as an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his CES Letter hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the CES Letter at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors unique to only that edition present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" CES Letter, accessed 22 December 2022, https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2
23. ↑ ^{23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5} Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
24. ↑ For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon," in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.
25. ↑ John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125–50.
26. ↑ See Michael Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196. (Key source)
27. ↑ The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link. For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.; Royal Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.
28. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon," The FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
29. ↑ Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17/7 (23 October 2015). [151–158] link
30. ↑ John W. Welch, "Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
31. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
32. ↑ "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, .
33. ↑ Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subequent half a century of investigation. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God=," Ensign 7 no. 9 (September 1977)..
34. ↑ Royal Skousen, "The Original Text of the Book of Mormon and its Publication by Yale University Press," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/3 (27 September 2013). [57–96] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Look at Some 'Nonstandard' Book of Mormon Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11/6 (15 August 2014). [209–262] link; Stanford Carmack, "What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13/9 (26 December 2014). [175–218] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14/8 (27 February 2015). [119–186] link; Stanford Carmack, "Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster's 1828)," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/7 (1 May 2015). [65–78] link; Stanford Carmack, "The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/6 (1 January 2016). [41–64] link; Stanford Carmack, "Joseph Smith Read the Words," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/5 (1 January 2016). [33–40] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Case of the -th Plural in the Earliest Text," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/1 (2016). [79–108] link; Stanford Carmack, "How Joseph Smith's Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25/11 (9 June 2017). [239–260] link; Stanford Carmack, "Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27/11 (17 November 2017). [185–196] link; Stanford Carmack, "Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28/11 (16 March 2018). [177–232] link; Stanford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36/1 (7 February 2020). [1–28] link; Stanford Carmack, "Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/2 (12 November 2021). [5–36] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Book of Mormon's Complex Finite Cause Syntax," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/5 (26 November 2021). [113–136] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Comparison of the Book of Mormon's Subordinate That Usage," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50/1 (7 January 2022). [1–32] link; "The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Parts 3-4 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).
35. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
36. ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100. ISBN 0252060121.
37. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 51–120. off-site
38. ↑ See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon
39. ↑ Royal Skousen, "How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [22–31] link
40. ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
41. ↑ ^{41.00 41.01 41.02 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 41.09 41.10 41.11 41.12 41.13 41.14 41.15 41.16 41.17 41.18 41.19 41.20 41.21 41.22 41.23 41.24 41.25 41.26 41.27 41.28 41.29 41.30 41.31 41.32 41.33} Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).
42. ↑ ^{42.00 42.01 42.02 42.03 42.04 42.05 42.06 42.07 42.08 42.09 42.10 42.11 42.12 42.13 42.14 42.15 42.16 42.17 42.18 42.19 42.20 42.21 42.22 42.23 42.24 42.25 42.26 42.27 42.28 42.29 42.30 42.31 42.32 42.33 42.34 42.35 42.36 42.37 42.38 42.39} David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 157-234..
43. ↑ Donald W. Parry, The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation (Preliminary Edition) (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 117.
44. ↑ 2 Nephi 4꞉30
45. ↑ Phillipians 2:13
46. ↑ Isaiah 48꞉10
47. ↑ ^{47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 47.7 47.8} Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/
48. ↑ ^{48.00 48.01 48.02 48.03 48.04 48.05 48.06 48.07 48.08 48.09 48.10 48.11} Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).
49. ↑ ^{49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4} Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022). off-site
50. ↑ ^{50.0 50.1} Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/1?lang=eng 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014).
51. ↑ Recall that the textual history of this verse is seen as quite complex. For detailed discussion, see Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link.
52. ↑ ^{52.0 52.1} John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
53. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Provoke".
54. ↑ Horst Seebass, "נֶפֶשׁ," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.
55. ↑ ^{55.0 55.1 55.2} Robert S. Boylan, "Some of the More Problematic Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon Suggesting Joseph Smith was Influenced by KJV Isaiah, not the Brass Plates," Scriptural Mormonism, November 13, 2021, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/some-of-more-problematic-isaiah.html?q=translation+errors.
56. ↑ ^{56.0 56.1} John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), {{{pages}}}
57. ↑ ^{57.0 57.1} Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Errors in the Book of Mormon?" Scriptural Mormonism, October 8, 2015, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/kjv-errors-in-book-of-mormon.html?q=translation+errors.
58. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "'Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Review of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon)'," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993): 50-51. [1–86] link
59. ↑ See Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "fence."
60. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Carcass".
61. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "seraph."
62. ↑ Dave Miller, "Is the Book of Mormon from God?" Apologetics Press, 31 December 2002, https://apologeticspress.org/is-the-book-of-mormon-from-god-1187/
63. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "cherub."
64. ↑ ^{64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.5} Dennis L. Largey (editor), Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003). ISBN 1573452319
65. ↑ Jason R. Combs, "From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/isa/7?lang=eng&id=p14#p14 Isaiah 7꞉14]," in Prophets & Prophecies of the Old Testament (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 95-122; Donald W. Parry, "An Approach to Isaiah Studies," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34/15 (10 January 2020). [245–264] link; Garrett Kell, "Is Jesus Really the Virgin–Born Child in Isaiah 7?" The Gospel Coalition, May 9, 2020, .
66. ↑ NET Bible, Isaiah 7], footnote 25.
67. ↑ Though there are translations (mostly much older ones) that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.
68. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Dragon".
69. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Handmaid".
70. ↑ Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13꞉2 14꞉23 (Lund, Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970), 29–32; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, "Seth Erlandsson on מדהבה meaning 'golden city' in Isaiah 14꞉4," Scriptural Mormonism, 11 November 2022, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/seth-erlandsson-on-meaning-golden-city.html?q=golden+city.
71. ↑ 2 Nephi 9꞉44; Mosiah 27꞉41; 29꞉19
72. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "chicken."
73. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Chicken".
74. ↑ Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Mistranslations in the Sermon at the Temple?" Scriptural Mormonism, May 5, 2016, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/kjv-mistranslations-in-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors. Citing Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, 202.
75. ↑ Eric D. Huntsman, "The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus," in The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture, ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 96, 107n14.
76. ↑ "What the Bible says about Outer Cloak (From Forerunner Commentary)," Bible Tools, accessed 22 September 2022, https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/11587/Outer-Cloak.htm.
77. ↑ Thomas A. Wayment, The New Testament, A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 14.
78. ↑ For a case in favor of "openly" being implied in the Greek, see Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, 205.
79. ↑ ^{79.0 79.1 79.2} Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.
80. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "tempt." (emphasis added)
81. ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "tempt." (italics in original)
82. ↑ Robert S. Boylan, "The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Temple, and the Doxology," Scriptural Mormonism,26 August 2014.
83. ↑ Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1꞉7: A Continental Commentary, trans. William C. Linss (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1985), 385; as cited in Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438n118.
84. ↑ ^{84.0 84.1} John W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 155.
85. ↑ John W. Welch, "Approaching New Approaches (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 159-160. [145–186] link
86. ↑ John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 67–71, 99–101.. [51–120] link, Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 121–29. [121–144] link
87. ↑ Ellen White, "Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?," Biblical Archaeology Society (3 August 2023).
88. ↑ Dialogue {{{2}}} {{{3}}}
89. ↑ This old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors.
90. ↑ "Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors.
91. ↑ This line was written 11 December 2022.
92. ↑ Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.
93. ↑ Joseph Smith, (July 1838) Elders Journal 1:42-43.
94. ↑ Complete article and citation can be read here
95. ↑ JD 9:311. .wiki.

Ensign (Sept. 1977): "If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible"

Richard Lloyd Anderson (Ensign, September 1977):

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” ^[1] Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording. ^[2]

NOTE: Witnesses to the translation process, including Joseph's wife Emma, state that Joseph Smith never consulted a Bible or any other book as he was dictating. If Joseph did indeed quote passages from the Bible word-for-word, as Richard Lloyd Anderson suggests, he did it without the aid of having a physical Bible present during the translation. For details, see Question: Could Joseph have used a Bible during and simply dictated from it during Book of Mormon translation?.

Response to claim: "Some LDS apologists admit that Joseph must have used the King James Bible when bringing forth the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

Some LDS apologists admit that Joseph must have used the King James Bible when bringing forth the Book of Mormon. They explain that translating was hard on Joseph, and when he recognized that parts of the golden plates were identical to the Bible, he used the Bible instead so Joseph would not have to go through the more laborious method of translating the BOM using the seer stones. This apologetic answer really sounds like they are grasping for straws to provide some sort of answer to this problem.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The critics try to spin the presentation of this data by implying that apologists are "grasping for straws". Although some apologists believe that Joseph used a Bible during translation, how did he hide it as he was dictating using the stone and the hat? Did he completely and accurately memorize extensive passages from Isaiah? Joseph's wife, Emma, would later say of the translation that he did not have a book to read from, and "[i]f he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me." - Joseph Smith III, " Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289–90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50–52. The critics are unable to explain this, yet they accuse apologists of "grasping for straws." In this instance, however, it is the critics that are "grasping for straws."

Response to claim: "if the sermon on the mount was not translated correctly in the Bible, why then, is it the same incorrect translation in the BOM?"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Christ's Sermon on the Mount in the BOM and the Bible are identical. Yet later on, in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, Joseph corrected many of the parts of the Sermon on the Mount. So the question is, if the sermon on the mount was not translated correctly in the Bible, why then, is it the same incorrect translation in the BOM? Why is it not corrected like Joseph later did with his Bible translation?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent. Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine or scripture.

Response to claim: "View of the Hebrews was a very popular book published in New England in 1823"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

View of the Hebrews was a very popular book published in New England in 1823 which said that the American Indians are really descended from Hebrews and that they came over here to America and separated into two factions, one civilized and one wild and bloodthirsty, and that there were lots of wars between them, and finally the wild faction wiped out the civilized faction.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The authors imply that Joseph used View of the Hebrews to create the Book of Mormon. There is so little similarity between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon that BYU actually republished the book in the 1990s just so that people could get access to it and read it for themselves.

Question: Could Joseph Smith have used Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews as a guideline for creating the Book of Mormon?

Criticisms related to View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

• It is claimed that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon.
• Some also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written.

Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon

The View of the Hebrews theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon. There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work. Many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, and many of the "parallels" are no longer valid based upon current scholarship.^[3]

Advocates of the Ethan Smith theory must also explain why Joseph, the ostensible forger, had the chutzpah to point out the source of his forgery. They must also explain why, if Joseph found this evidence so compelling, he did not exploit it for use in the Book of Mormon text itself, since the Book of Mormon contains no reference to the many "unparallels" that Ethan assured his readers virtually guaranteed a Hebrew connection to the Amerindians.

Question: Was the View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon origin advanced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith?

The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during Joseph Smith's lifetime

The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the Spalding Theory, which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet.^[4]

Joseph Smith quoted View of the Hebrews as supporting the Book of Mormon

There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:

If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.]^[5]

It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?

Question: What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?

B.H. Roberts was playing "devil's advocate" when he examined View of the Hebrews, and showing what a critic might do

Main article: B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon

The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.^[6]

Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

Roberts rejected the idea that the Book of Mormon was not divine

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

Question: What are the similarities and differences between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?

Examples of parallels and differences

Some parallels do exist between the two books. For example, View of the Hebrews postulates the existence of a civilized and a barbarous nation who were constantly at war with one another, with the civilized society eventually being destroyed by their uncivilized brethren. This has obvious similarities to the story of the Nephites and the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon.

"Parallels" that actually aren't parallels

Many of the "parallels" that are discussed are not actually parallels at all once they are fully examined:

Both speak of...	View of the Hebrews	Book of Mormon
...the destruction of Jerusalem...	...by the Romans in A.D. 70.	...by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
...Israelites coming to the American continent...	...via dry land across the Bering Strait.	...via the ocean on board a ship.
...colonists spread out to fill the entire land...	...from the North to the South.	...from the South to the North.
...a great lawgiver (whom some assume to be associated with the legend of Quetzalcoatl)...	...who is identified as Moses.	...who is identified as Jesus Christ.
...an ancient book that was preserved for a long time and then buried...	...because they had lost the knowledge of reading it and it would be of no further use to them. [7]	...in order to preserve the writings of prophets for future generations.
...a buried book taken from the earth...	...in the form of four, dark yellow, folded leaves of old parchment.[8]	...in the form of a set of gold metal plates.
...the Egyptian language, since	...an Egyptian influence is present in hieroglyphic paintings made by native Americans.[9]	...a reformed Egyptian was used to record a sacred history.

Parallels that are everywhere

Some "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews are actually parallels with the Bible as well:

The Book of Mormon	View of the Hebrews	The King James Bible
The Book of Mormon tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.	View of the Hebrews talks of Indian traditions that state that their fathers were able to foretell the future and control nature.	The Bible tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.
The Book of Mormon was translated by means of the Nephite interpreters, which consisted of two stones fastened to a breastplate, and later by means of a seer stone, both of which were later referred to by the name "Urim and Thummim" three years after the translation was completed.	View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate with two white buttons fastened to it as resembling the Urim and Thummim.	The Bible describes the Urim and Thummim as being fastened to a breastplate (Exodus 28:30).

This highlights the fact that general parallels are likely to be found between works that treat the same types of subjects, such as ancient history. In what ancient conflict did one side not see themselves as representing light and civilization against the dark barbarism of their enemies?

"Unparallels"

Critics generally ignore the presence of many "unparallels"—these are elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph to use in order to persuade his contemporaries that the Book of Mormon was an ancient history of the American Indians, and that they were descended from Israel. Yet, the Book of Mormon consistently ignores such supposed "bulls-eyes," which is good news for proponents of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, since virtually all of Ethan's "evidences" have been judged to be false or misleading.

The lack of such "unparallels" is bad news, however, for anyone wanting to claim that Joseph got his inspiration or information from Ethan Smith.

Main article: "Unparallels": superficially-appealing evidence from View of the Hebrews that the Book of Mormon ignores

Scripture use in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

If the View of the Hebrews served as the basis for the Book of Mormon, one would think that the Bible scriptures used by Ethan Smith would be mined by Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon. Yet, this is not the case.

Main articles: Analysis of Isaiah scriptures used in Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews and Analysis of non-Isaiah scriptures used in Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews

Why was this only discovered later?

No contemporary critic of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon pointed out the supposedly "obvious" connection to the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. It is only with the failure of the Spaulding theory that critics began seeking a new naturalistic explanation for Joseph's production of a 500+ book of scripture. As Stephen Ricks notes:

Beyond these "unparallels," there is a further question that must be answered by proponents of the View of the Hebrews hypothesis: why do none of the early critics of the Book of Mormon mention Ethan Smith in their attacks on it? If the parallels are so evident, why weren't they noticed by individuals who were not only acquainted with Ethan Smith's book, but were also existentially interested in its claims? Why wasn't it prominently mentioned as a source for the Book of Mormon until the beginning of the twentieth century, when the book itself had only an antiquarian interest and its contents were no longer so widely a part of popular discussion? My suspicion is that what appear today to be "distinctives" of View of the Hebrews, eschatological and otherwise, seemed less so in the early part of the nineteenth century, when these ideas flowed freely in published and unpublished forums.^[10]

Question: Has the book View of the Hebrews been readily available?

Because availability was limited, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996

The View of the Hebrews theory became more popular as the availability of the book itself diminished. The best evidence that argues against View of the Hebrews as the primary source for the Book of Mormon is a reading of the text itself, yet the ability to access that text had become more difficult over the years. In order to provide the interested reader with the ability to decide for themselves, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996.^[11] It is also available at wikisource.

Question: Is there a link between Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, and Oliver Cowdery?

Both Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended

Critics postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written. Beyond speculation based upon this circumstantial evidence, there is no indication of a connection between View of the Hebrews, Oliver Cowdery, and the Book of Mormon.

This article from BYU Studies shows that the type of connection that critics align with Oliver and Ethan almost certainly did not exist.

Testimony from Lorenzo Saunders

At least one critic has attempted to place Oliver Cowdery on the Joseph Smith farm beginning in 1826 based on the testimony of one Lorenzo Saunders to strengthen the supposed connection between Ethan Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the origins of the Book of Mormon.^[12] Dan Vogel writes:

On 19 Janaury 1885, Thomas Gregg of Hamilton, Hancock County, Illinois, wrote to Lorenzo Saunders living near Reading, Michigan, requesting information about Mormon origins. Gregg's letter, as reproduced by Charles A. Shook reads as follows:

Charles A. Shook wrote an expose of Mormonism in 1914 called The True Origin Of The Book of Mormon. He quoted this letter from Lorenzo (brother-in-law to Sally and Willard Chase —the same Chases who had trouble with Joseph) as a means of placing Oliver close to Joseph Smith in years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, as Vogel himself writes as commentary in a footnote to this letter:

4. Saunders' claim that Cowdery first came to Palmyra and Manchester in the summer of 1826 is not corroborated in any other source. However, it is known that Cowdery's brother Lyman was in the area as early as 1825 and possibly taught school in Manchester prior to Oliver's arrival for the 1828-1829 winter term. This is another example of Saunders' tendency to remember things in conformity with the demands of his interviewers, which should be considered when assessing his statements regarding Rigdon's appearances in the Palmyra/Manchester area (see note 10 below).^[13]

Thus we have:

1. A late source as the letter comes a little more than 5 decades after Saunders was supposed to have seen Saunders on the farm.
2. A biased source as Thomas Gregg was an avid Spaulding theorist and Saunders was certainly no friend to Joseph.
3. A more than plausible alternative for this supposed presence of Oliver on the Smith farm in 1826 which Saunders can easily misremember or remember in conformity with the demands of the situation which, as Vogel notes, is something he was wont to do.

This source is nearly worthless in establishing anything of value in the historical record. Any claims of the evidence being "inconclusive" for Oliver's presence on the Smith farm or meeting Joseph before 1829 based upon this source are of the the same value.

Response to claim: "There was a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

There was a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: "If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America..."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

This text was taken from the FairMormon Answer Wiki, so we will add our final comment on the item as well: "It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?"

From the FairMormon Answers Wiki article Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/View of the Hebrews:

There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:

If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][3] It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?

Response to claim: "Early American Influences in the Book of Mormon stands in direct contradiction to the testimonies of witnesses to Joseph Smith's translation process"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Early American Influences in the Book of Mormon stands in direct contradiction to the testimonies of witnesses to Joseph Smith's translation process. Translation is a generous term considering the word for word dictation method as observed by those closest to Smith. The multiple accounts of Smith's glowing stone in his hat delivering each word in order leaves little room for Smith interpreting or translating what he saw. Yet, when compared to available contemporary writing, the Book of Mormon is shown repeatedly to borrow verbiage and phrases from its time.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Why wouldn't the Book of Mormon incorporate verbiage and phrases from "its time" (presumably the 19th century)? It was a translation into 19th Century English. "Translation" is defined as "The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another." Just exactly what target language would MormonThink find acceptable?

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith may simply have had help from someone else to write the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith may simply have had help from someone else to write the Book of Mormon. Someone else may have written the BOM (or most of it) and Joseph was merely the one to deliver it to the world. There are many theories regarding this idea. They generally involve some combination of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and perhaps an author by the name of Solomon Spalding.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Response to claim: "The Spalding theory often does not get much attention...We think that the Tanners and Fawn Brodie did a disservice to the theory"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

The Spalding theory often does not get much attention because two of the biggest critics of the LDS Church dismissed it years ago - The Tanners and Fawn Brodie. LDS apologists dismiss it similarly saying that it was refuted long ago. We think that the Tanners and Fawn Brodie did a disservice to the theory as there is some significant information that supports the theory that is worthy of further study.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Spalding Theory was dismissed because in order to have validity it must assume the existence of a lost second Spalding manuscript, despite the fact that the existing Spalding manuscript was unfinished. It also must assume that Joseph met Sidney Rigdon well before the Book of Mormon was published, rather than afterward as has been documented. It also must assume that Joseph and Sidney kept their collusion on the production of the Book of Mormon secret, even after Joseph and Sidney had a falling out and parted ways. Even to his death, Sidney insisted he had nothing to do with it. That is why most critics have rejected it. The authors' "significant information" is the Jocker/Criddle study, which tries (and fails) to breathe life back into the defunct Spalding theory. Yet, the Criddle paper is deeply and embarrassingly flawed--a rebuttal was published in the same statistical journal in which the original effort appeared.^[14]

Criddle's methodology is so flawed that when his methodology was used on The Federalist Papers, it found a 99% probability that Sidney Rigdon wrote them.

Criddle's methodology, when applied to his own paper, found a 99% probability that Oliver Cowdery had written their paper.

an authorship attribution study requires the consistent, coherent, and congruent conjunction of historical, biographical, and stylometric evidence to support the conjecture of a writer as the author of a text with disputed authorship. Such a combination of mutually supporting evidence was not set forth by Criddle and associates.32 Even as a stylometric analysis the Criddle and associates study is invalid since they made a fundamental error in their study design by considering Book of Mormon authorship to be a closed-set problem and then making the logical error of saying the results exclude any other possible authorship, when in fact the researchers had not even allowed for the possibility of other authors in their study design. The open-set possibility is sometimes called the "none of the above" possibility, and in authorship attribution studies an open set is more often the case than not.

The Criddle and associates study used the Nearest Shrunken Centroid (NSC) classification method in an attempt to find evidence in support of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. However, their study design was fundamentally flawed. Although NSC is a sound classification technique, the Criddle and associates study was an unsuitable and mistaken use of the technique. The compounding effect of at least eight major errors rendered their results utterly meaningless....^[15]

The eight errors are:

• Failing to Include Joseph Smith as a Candidate Author [in the Criddle method, if you don't include someone as a possible author, the method cannot detect them, and will conclude (with high probability) that someone else is the author.]
• Misapplying a Closed-Set Technique for an Open-Set Problem [Criddle's method will always give the closest of those tested, but this is useless if the true author isn't included]
• Confusing "Closest" to Mean "Close" [since some author must be closest, one must then determine "how close": and Rigdon wasn't close at all]
• Misinterpreting Relative Probabilities as Absolute Probabilities
• Ignoring a High Rate of False Classifications
• Using Circular Statistical Thinking
• Disregarding Statistical Problems of Homogeneity and Multiplicity
• Confounding the Primary Candidate Author's Differing Writing Styles

Response to claim: "Dale Broadhurst has amassed a collection of various 1800s newspaper articles that report many accounts of those that support the Spalding Theory"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Dale Broadhurst has amassed a collection of various 1800s newspaper articles that report many accounts of those that support the Spalding Theory and witnesses that claimed Sidney Rigdon admitted his involvement in producing the Book of Mormon.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Yet, Broadhurst can never find the alleged "second manuscript" nor can he find that elusive "missing link" that Joseph and Rigdon colluded to produce the Book of Mormon.

Response to claim: "A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii and LDS believers have said that puts the nail in the Spalding Theory coffin. The manuscript that was discovered was Manuscript Story, not Manuscript Found, even though it was given that name later on, perhaps as wishful thinking so the Spalding theory would die. Yet discussions have included both names over the years. So then if there was only one manuscript, then it was/is Manuscript Story, and Manuscript Found doesn't exist, unless it is indeed the second manuscript, the one which Solomon Spalding did indeed submit to a print shop in Pittsburgh. The point of contention then becomes whether that manuscript later became the basis for the Book of Mormon.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Wrong. The "point of contention" is whether or not a second manuscript even exists, given that the one located in Hawaii, which was unfinished, is the only known Spalding manuscript in existence.

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Summary

Response to claim: "Ethan Smith - the author of A View of the Hebrews was Oliver Cowdery's minister from 1823-1828"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

1. Ethan Smith - the author of A View of the Hebrews was Oliver Cowdery's minister from 1823-1828 - they both are from Poultney, VT. This is also where the book was published. 2.Solomon Spalding was also a classmate of Ethan Smith and both were graduates of the same religious college. Some people believe that both Ethan and Solomon's works are plagiarized in the Book of Mormon.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Ethan Smith, author of A View of the Hebrews (an entirely different Book of Mormon authorship theory) was Oliver Cowdery's minister, and Solomon Spalding was a classmate of Ethan Smith.

• So, are you implying that Spalding gave Ethan Smith ideas, and that these were transferred to Cowdery?
• Are you implying that Ethan Smith gave Solomon Spalding ideas?
• Are you implying that it was Oliver Cowdery that actually wrote the Book of Mormon based upon ideas that he got from Spalding and/or Smith?
• Wait, what happened to Sidney Rigdon in all of this?

This type of thing is why intelligent critics tend to reject the Spalding Theory.

Response to claim: "More ongoing work is currently being performed in order to try to find a link between Rigdon and Smith before the BOM was published"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

We don't necessarily support the Spalding theory; however there is more evidence to support the theory than we initially thought. If this theory is true then it neatly answers many of the concerns that faithful members have who question the church based on other problematic issues such as the temple ceremony and Book of Abraham translation issues but still don't think that Joseph could have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own. Many people currently support the theory. It may or may not be true, but it's certainly worthy of further study. More ongoing work is currently being performed in order to try to find a link between Rigdon and Smith before the BOM was published.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Anyone who has read the convoluted attempts above to link Spalding to Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, or the Book of Mormon can clearly see that the Spalding theory does not "neatly answer" anything. Yes, finding a link between Rigdon and Smith before the Book of Mormon is a daunting task, considering that Rigdon joined the Church after reading the Book of Mormon. Finding a second, complete Spalding manuscript when the original bears little resemblance to the Book of Mormon, and wasn't even completed, is a daunting task. The critics' optimism regarding "more ongoing work" to find a link between Rigdon and Joseph Smith before the Book of Mormon was published is misplaced.

Response to claim: "It should also take into consideration the fact that Joseph Smith had years to come up with text and plot"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

It should also take into consideration the fact that Joseph Smith had years to come up with text and plot. There are tons of books, far superior in writing style and story line, that didn't take nearly as long as the Book of Mormon did to complete. It may have been dictated in 90 days but he had been working on it, if only in his head, for years. Of course if the Spalding theory has any validity to it, the translating speed is not an issue at all as he would have basically been dictating a book already written.

Author's sources:

1. An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer, pp 66-67.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

And your evidence supporting this is.....precisely nothing? Are you asserting that Joseph had an eidetic memory as well? Oh, but if that doesn't work out, there's always the Spalding Theory. And the critics accuse apologists of making desperate attempts to explain things.

Response to claim: "If Joseph was indeed committing a fraud...He simply acted like he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls...OR if the BOM came from another source...then he may have been genuinely surprised"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Critic's Comment: If Joseph was indeed committing a fraud, but wanted to convince his wife that he was really translating an ancient document, then that is exactly the kind of stunt that Joseph would do. He simply acted like he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls so she would think he was translating from another document and not merely making it up. OR if the BOM came from another source such as Sidney Rigdon, then he may have been genuinely surprised to read that and simply stated as such.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The absurdity of this statement is astounding - it is simply a way to explain different ways Joseph could be a fraud. So, the point here is that Joseph had to keep up the appearance that he didn't really know what he was dictating, so he threw out the question about whether or not Jerusalem had walls....or if Rigdon really wrote it, then Joseph really was surprised. OK...

Response to claim: "Joseph likely memorized the pages well enough to continue where he left off or he may very well have peaked at the last page before he started again"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Critic's Comment: According to Oliver Cowdery, Oliver scribed the entire Book of Mormon 'save a few pages'. Emma may have only done a few pages here and there. Joseph likely memorized the pages well enough to continue where he left off or he may very well have peaked at the last page before he started again - it's not like Emma kept the pages. Joseph would have kept the pages already done, and he simply looked at them before he gave them to Emma to begin translating again. It's not that remarkable when you think about it. And if there was a curtain between them, as was commonly taught when we were growing up in the Church, then Joseph could have obviously had notes or any material he wanted to look at.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is pure spin, and it contradicts the eyewitness statements. Don't critics agree that Joseph dictated openly using a stone and a hat? Is the curtain simply a convenient explanation this time around? The critics are just making this up as they go, right? If you were to examine that actual historical sources, you would discover that the curtain was likely used while Martin Harris and Emma were scribes while Joseph used the Nephite interpreters, and that after the loss of the 116 pages, the curtain was gone and Joseph dictated openly using the stone and the hat. This means that any material dictated when the curtain was in place was likely part of the lost 116 pages. The entire Book of Mormon text dictated to Oliver appears to have been produced using the stone and the hat. So, where are all these notes and things that Joseph "likely memorized." Not one single note or page has ever turned up to support this.

Response to claim: "we were clearly taught that there was a curtain between Joseph and Oliver Cowdery...If that's the case...Joseph could have simply read from notes or even whole papers"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Growing up in the church we were clearly taught that there was a curtain between Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, the principle scribe for the BOM. This was done presumably so that the scribe could not see the plates. If that's the case, then the dictation isn't even an issue as Joseph could have simply read from notes or even whole papers that were already developed by him or someone else.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Actually, the curtain was between Joseph and Martin Harris. With Oliver, there was no curtain. Even the critics (although apparently not this one) make a big deal about Joseph sitting on the stairs or in some other location with his head in his hat dictating to Oliver right out in the open. Unless, of course, the notes were in the bottom of the hat. But, Joseph had his face in the hat, so how did he read the notes? Sometimes its simply easier to believe in the "gift and power of God"...

Response to claim: "knowledgeable LDS historians endorse the idea that Joseph put his face in a hat with a seer stone and dictated the BOM to a scribe"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

However, LDS historians support the idea that there was often not a curtain between Joseph and the scribe. If a curtain was used at all, it was to separate Joseph and Oliver from others in the house. Although still unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, knowledgeable LDS historians endorse the idea that Joseph put his face in a hat with a seer stone and dictated the BOM to a scribe when the plates were either covered or not even in the room.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

This section originally read: "LDS faithful such as Daniel Peterson are now endorsing the idea that Joseph put his face in a hat with a seer stone and dictated the BOM to a scribe when the plates were either covered or not even in the room." However, knowledge of the stone in the hat being used for translation has been know by LDS historians for decades. This isn't recent at all—the historical data has been around for a long time. It has been written about for a long time.

Response to claim: "Emma blatantly lies in the following questions seriously damaging her credibility"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

When LDS faithful quote the above two questions and answers by Emma they never quote the rest of the interview by Emma. That's because Emma blatantly lies in the following questions seriously damaging her credibility. Here are other questions and her answers from that same letter:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

So, Emma claimed that Joseph sat in the open dictating using the stone and the hat, but she lied about Joseph's polygamy. Is the critic asking us to disbelieve Emma's claim about the stone in the hat?

1. REDIRECTEmma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages#How did Emma Hale Smith react to Joseph's practice of plural marriage?

Response to claim: "Emma's answers are blatant lies, as the historical record shows"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Critic's Comment: Emma's answers are blatant lies, as the historical record shows. Her intentions are fairly clear - she is lying in order to protect Joseph Smith's legacy. What she said in the same letter about Smith's involvement in creating the Book of Mormon is equally suspect. Emma said this to her (and Joseph's) son, Joseph Smith III, who was president of the Reorganized Church. She had ample motive to defend the Book of Mormon to her own son who was president of a Church that she was a member of, and which also considered the Book of Mormon to be scripture.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Historical data shows that Emma knew about Joseph's polygamy, so we know that what she said to her son during this interview is incorrect. Her reasons for doing this are not known. However, dismissing Emma's entire interview as "blatant lies" is a very odd position for critics to take, since she clearly supports the Book of Mormon translation method of using the stone in a hat with the plates covered on a table. This translation method is corroborated by a number of other witnesses, so there is no reason to dismiss what Emma said in this case.

Response to claim: "she didn't want to be portrayed as the woman whose husband made a fool of by claiming divine right to have relations with dozens of other women while he was married to Emma"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Comments on Emma

Although Emma likely believed Joseph, even if she didn't, she would still have supported her husband. If she suspected that Joseph was indeed making this stuff up and she stated that to the public, Joseph's enemies surely would have taken it out on him. Emma obviously wouldn't want any harm to come to her husband, and the father of her children, regardless of the reason. Also Emma lied when she felt it was necessary. In addition to her false claim that Smith couldn't "write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter", she also lied to her son about polygamy. She lied repeatedly to her children when asked if their father practiced polygamy. She denied it so strongly so her children would not have a tainted view of their father. Emma's lies are one of the reasons that the RLDS (Community of Christ) church was formed.

In view of the documentary record, together with the fact that Emma also testified that Joseph had no wife but her, it can be surmised that her "memory" was probably more concerned with how she wanted things to be remembered more than how they had actually happened. And of course she didn't want to be portrayed as the woman whose husband made a fool of by claiming divine right to have relations with dozens of other women while he was married to Emma.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

We will let Emma speak for herself on this one. Just because she denied polygamy does not mean you get to conveniently dismiss everything that she ever said. Here's what Emma said in 1879:

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.^[16]

Response to claim: "If there are others that produced works that far exceeded their capabilities, then this would show that Joseph's experience was not unique"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

One reason stated by many Latter-day Saints to support their belief in the Book of Mormon is their assertion that Joseph Smith didn't have the education and knowledge to produce such a work. They cite that no one else of Joseph's Smith comparable background ever produced anything well-beyond their apparent capabilities as Joseph did. If there are others that produced works that far exceeded their capabilities, then this would show that Joseph's experience was not unique and perhaps there are more earthly explanations for the Book of Mormon's origins.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

No, this is incorrect. Latter-day Saints do not base their belief on the idea that no one other than Joseph Smith ever produced anything "beyond their apparent capabilities." What makes the Book of Mormon unique is that one determines its truthfulness by asking God to demonstrate it to them.

Response to claim: "Their lack of ability, in each case, did not seem to deter them from producing works which equal, or easily surpass, the Book of Mormon in literary style and quality"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Both Mohammed and Pearl Curran were of like mental ability to Joseph Smith. Mrs. Curran had a slightly better education than Smith, although it was still not outstanding by any means. Mohammed's formal education, on the other hand, was virtually nil. He was illiterate, unlike Smith, who could read and write. (It should be noted that the claim that Mohammed was unlettered has been disputed by a number of professional historians, including some Muslim scholars).

Their lack of ability, in each case, did not seem to deter them from producing works which equal, or easily surpass, the Book of Mormon in literary style and quality. We find then that the LDS claim that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon is without foundation. Not only has a similar feat been performed before, it has been performed better.

If the Book of Mormon is held up as proof of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling on the basis that he could not have written it, then we must grant the same status to Pearl Curran and Mohammed, on the same grounds. Anything less would amount to intellectual dishonesty.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

So, now we're back to the claim that Joseph did write it. Joseph dictated the text in 65 working days. Mohammed dictated his over a period of approximately 23 years.

Did Mrs. Curran found a religious movement? Are her texts revered as life-changing scripture by millions? No--she claimed to channel a departed spirit, and produced material that was published. Few of the works remain in print today, and they are little read.^[17]

Thus, Joseph did something which is probably unequaled in terms of the influence that it has had and the short time frame in which it occurred. It is a pity that MormonThink cannot simply admit that it is amazing--they don't have to accept that Joseph could not have written it. But, they need to quit acting as if there is nothing particularly amazing about it (except when they want to foist the whole thing on Spalding or Rigdon as the mood strikes them). MormonThink again caricatures the LDS position--the fact that the Book of Mormon was apparently beyond Joseph's capacity is not the only argument for its divine nature--simply one of them. It supports the idea, it does not prove it. Since Mohammed and Mrs. Curran do not share the many other characteristics that Joseph's work does, it is not intellectually dishonest to come to different conclusions about them. It is, however, intellectually dishonest to misrepresent the believer's argument. We are, however, quite happy that they realize (if only implicitly) that Joseph belongs in a very select group--the handful of people who have produced a new sacred text that has founded a major religious movement that persists to the present. That alone ought to give us pause.

Response to claim: "A righteous man who was deluded could have written the Book of Mormon, not aware that he was lying"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

A righteous man who was deluded could have written the Book of Mormon, not aware that he was lying. There are hundreds of examples of well-meaning (righteous) people who have produced "scriptures" which we (as LDS members) would not accept such as Mohammed, Zoroaster, Lao Tze, to mention only a few. Even well-meaning believers in Joseph Smith have produced nice-sounding scriptures. Here are a few examples:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is an absurd argument. Doesn't this throw the entire critical argument of Joseph being a con-man out the window? Which is it? Is he a liar memorizing a fake text for years and dictating it, or cribbing a text from Solomon Spalding (a second text, not the text we know about), faking up plates to pack around and trick people with, or is he delusion who believes it all real?

Response to claim: "Some people believe that Joseph Smith's hand was moving by some strange force like the channelers do"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Some people believe that Joseph Smith's hand was moving by some strange force like the channelers do. Now the channeling hypotheses cannot be dismissed out of hand. Joseph was trained by his father in the hermitic arts. His use of the seer stone is consistent with a long tradition stretching back to Europe. Our Thoughts: We don't give credence to any particular theory of channeling, but just state that those who "believe" (or who say that they do) are capable of complex and lengthy documents that seem to greatly exceed the normal capabilities demonstrated by the 'mediums' when not in a trance.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

So, just in case Joseph didn't write it, and just in case Oliver Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon didn't write it, we will throw in the possibility that the Book of Mormon simply wrote itself. That should cover every possible way of explaining the Book of Mormon without having to believe in God's hand in it.

Response to claim: "The book is clearly of purely human origin, penned by an author with a vivid imagination ....Together with the duplicity of Smith's associates Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

Ending summary by critics. The book is clearly of purely human origin, penned by an author with a vivid imagination ....Together with the duplicity of Smith's associates Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer, their affirmation of the Book of Mormon as a part of "God's restoration of the true Church" helped attract the hundreds, than thousands who would travel with them across the Midwest to create their own religious utopia, Zion, which would evolve into the LDS Church of today.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

So, the critics just dismiss everyone as liars and move on. This is easier than dealing with what the witnesses actually said.

Response to claim: "unless Laban was in the habit of coming home with blood-drenched clothing"

The author(s) of MormonThink make(s) the following claim:

The only thing remarkable about the Book of Mormon is how remarkably bad it is. How much genius does it take to write about god telling Nephi to hack off Laban's head and then put on Laban's clothing to fool Laban's servants into thinking that Nephi was Laban? (A slightly intelligent writer would almost instantly see that there was a problem with this scenario, unless Laban was in the habit of coming home with blood-drenched clothing and dripping blood and gore all over the place.)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is simply sarcastic spin.

Book of Mormon/Nephi's killing of Laban/Blood loss from decapitation

Source quotes without critical commentary

Summary: If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if only the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.

Notes

1. ↑ Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 141.
2. ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7, no. 9 (September 1977).
3. ↑ John W. Welch, "View of the Hebrews: 'An Unparallel'," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 83–87.
4. ↑ I. Woodbridge Riley, The Founder of Mormonism (New York, 1902), 124–126.
5. ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., "From Priest's American Antiquities," (1 June 1842) Times and Seasons 3:813-815.
6. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
7. ↑ View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, edited by Charles D. Tate Jr., (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996), 223. ISBN 1570082472. off-site wikisource
8. ↑ Ethan Smith, 220.
9. ↑ Ethan Smith, 184-185.
10. ↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 235–250. off-site
11. ↑ Andrew H. Hedges, "Review of: View of the Hebrews," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 63–68. off-site
12. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon" under Witnesses. Last updated 4 June 2014
13. ↑ Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996-2003) 3:176-7
14. ↑ Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M.Witten, and Craig S. Criddle, “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon Using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23/4 (2008): 465–91.
15. ↑ G. Bruce Schaalje, Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 87–111. off-site wiki
16. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
17. ↑ "The story and writings of Pearl Curran/Patience Worth are little known outside of occult circles today. Most of the writing is out of print, except for a few print on demand publishers who specialize in public domain works." - wikipedia.org (accessed 9 May 2012).