KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Question: If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?

Introduction to Question

The Book of Mormon contains quotations from the King James Version of the Bible. These quotations contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors on the part of the translators of the KJV. Thus the Book of Mormon includes some potentially erroneous elements in its translation. Our critics 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?”

There are actually three separate questions that arise when confronted with the KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon.

1. The first question is whether the Book of Mormon's translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader into bad understandings of God. Joseph Smith declared that the Book of Mormon was 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. Thus, Latter-day Saints and others interested in the Book of Mormon are concerned with the book's ethical message and whether these translation errors alter the quoted passages' meaning so much as to make that ethical message erroneous.
2. The second question is whether the translation errors give evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the King James Bible in order to create the text of the Book of Mormon
3. The third and last question is why God would allow the text of the Book of Mormon to contain translation errors.

We'll deal with these questions in order.

Response to Question

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

Before all else we write in this response, we should note that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible. All translations of the biblical text we have today come from the earliest known copies of the original manuscripts. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation of the King James Bible is going to be mildly suspect for that simple fact. 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. It should be noted that we also do not intend to claim that the Book of Mormon necessarily preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, alludes to, etc. In some cases, we simply can't know whether it does. Further, who's to say that the original manuscripts are "better" than either the King James or Book of Mormon translations? Speaks with more clarity and more accurately conveys what the biblical authors meant to communicate? What if the King James and Book of Mormon versions make the biblical authors they translate/quote clearer than the original biblical authors were in their original writings? Or correct other errors in their communication? What if the original authors meant to write one thing and wrote another? Do we really consider that a "translation error" then? If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different literally" then perhaps yes we would consider the KJV/Book of Mormon translation as erroneous, but translation is a much broader concept and can include 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. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary that contains the definitions of words as they would have most likely been used by Joseph Smith 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 on top of merely rendering something in a new language.

We often forget that there are three layers we have to identify and uncover when wanting to understand a text: what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write, what is actually written, and our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes. Those definitions of words 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 you add a fourth layer to identify and untangle from the other three which is the translation itself and what relation it has to its source text. 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 perhaps the authors weren'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 so as to uncover the original definitions of words as the original authors of a text understood them. Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it and the supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it.

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 either nearly or completely unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.

With that, let's get to answering the questions listed above. We'll assume (just for the sake of argument and to satisfy our critics as much as possible) that the manuscripts of the biblical texts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors as well as the authors' intent.

1. Do the KJV translation errors give us an erroneous ethical message about God?

Royal Skousen, a Latter-day Saint linguist and scholar of the textual history of the Book of Mormon, has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen does "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, we simply recognize that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible." In some cases, the translation errors are legitimately errors. While the errors do change the meaning of the passages, they do not necessarily change the intent of them. In some cases, the errors are merely translation variants (rather than errors) where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. In some cases, the intent of the passage is changed, but the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding. It doesn't give us a wrong view about God, who he is, and what we need to understand about him to become like him. Thus, with this four-tiered response (that we don't have the original manuscripts of the Bible, that certain translation differences can be considered variants rather than errors, that legitimate errors may change the meaning but not the intent of the passage, and a changed intent of a passage may not give an inaccurate understanding of true doctrine) the Book of Mormon can retain its status as the "most correct book". Skousen himself 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." This list will also include at least ten other "errors" identified by two critics.

Below is a table that contains all of them including their 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.

Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon

Location in Canon	Erroneous Translation	Passage	Commentary
1. 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."	"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'." 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 can send forth for the wrongdoing that parties in a dispute have committed towards each other or that solely one party has inflicted on the other. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in Proverbs, Hebrews, and Helaman.
2. Isaiah 2:16 ~ 2 Nephi 12:16	Pictures	"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant pictures"	The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant ships". Though there are plenty of biblical translations that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. 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. Both ships and pleasant pictures can do/be a part of that.
3. 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"	"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." 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." 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.
4. 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."	"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])." Same commentary here as made for 2 Nephi 13:2
5. Isaiah 3:22 ~ 2 Nephi 13:22	Wimples	"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the wimples, and the crisping pins"	"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)." 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, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
6. Isaiah 3:22 ~ 2 Nephi 13:22	Crisping pins	"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins"	"The modern-day equivalent of crisping pin would be curling iron. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags." Same commentary as that given for 2 Nephi 13:22.
7. 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."	"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'." 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 isn’t changed and is still correct.
8. 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. "	"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." 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)." Thus, the Lord does all this hard work to get a good vineyard but fails. Fencing can be a part of efforts to get a productive vineyard and those efforts can fail. Again, we have a change in meaning but no change in intent. Some biblical translations retain “fenced” in their rendering of the verse.
9. 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."	The better translation is "but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan". The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in Isaiah 9:1. Isaiah 9:1 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 here for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen. There's a question that arises now: could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on Nephi? 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 Nephi's present 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; Deuteronomy 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. 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 the best reconstruction of it). 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. Thus, it's not an error, but (on this theory at least) 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. Thus, the intent of the verse is changed and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah meant to communicate about God’s nature. But it isn’t an error of what Nephi meant to communicate about God with his likening of Isaiah. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error. It would again just be Joseph Smith’s translation of Nephi’s “likening” of Isaiah. Thus Isaiah meant to say honor, but Nephi changed it to being about affliction of his family by God while they were traveling near the Red Sea.
10. 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"	The better translation is "more precious. . .than the gold of Ophir". 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.
11. 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."	"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." Either way we just have a mythical creature dancing. No significant change in meaning. The vast majority of biblical translations render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or satyrs (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures).
12. 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."	Skousen says that "In 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." 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." Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. A significant number of biblical translations render it as "handmaids".
13. 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!"	The better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the assaulting ceased". 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. Three other biblical translations render it as "golden city".
14. Isaiah 14:5 ~ 2 Nephi 24:5	Scepter	"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers."	Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the rod of the rulers". But the vast majority of 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. This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text.
15. 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!"	"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!'" The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. Six other biblical translations render this verse as weaken.
16. 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."	"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')." Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. Four other biblical translations render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
17. 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?"	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?'" Wright is correct that this verse is garbled horribly. 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)." The Book of Mormon teaches us already that God is all-searching. and all-wise.
18. 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."	"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." Some translations 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 peoples that come down on the negative side of his judgements. In any dispute, there will be reproofs and/or punishments that the judge or arbiter can bring down for the wrongdoing that parties in a dispute have committed towards each other or that solely one party has inflicted on the other. Reproof and punishing are acts that a judge or arbitrator does. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove.
19. 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:"	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. 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. Stan Larson 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". Larson is correct in his claim, but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity (as he so foolishly argues) 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!
20. 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."	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 support this reading. The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. Many modern biblical translations render this verse as "cast into hell".
21. 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;"	This translation does contrast with newer translations based on earlier manuscripts. The newer translations render it more simply. Always along the lines of just "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you." The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
22. 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."	The word "openly" in this verse is omitted in most 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 13. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek while others don't. Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it's arguably still correct doctrine/teaching. Proverbs 10:22 informs us that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." 2 Corinthians 9:8 informs us 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 other people both at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"?
23. 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."	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. We've argued that the inclusion of the doxology in 3 Nephi 13:13 is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See here for our response. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. It's repeated
23. Matthew 7:22 ~ 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."	Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of 3 Nephi 14:2 is erroneous. 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.' Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.' 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."
24. 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."	The Hebrew verb for sprinkle doesn't make 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. Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. The majority of biblical translations render it as sprinkle. Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew. If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation error. At worst, it can only be a translation variant.
25. 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."	"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." Given that 'groves' refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah in its essence: that idolatry is wrong (Mosiah 13:12-13) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. Three other biblical translations render this verse as "groves".

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." Here is a table of those cultural translations plus commentary on those translations similar to the previous table.

Alleged KJV Cultural Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon

Location in Canon	Erroneous Translation	Passage	Commentary
1. Isaiah 3:18 ~ 2 Nephi 13:18	Cauls	"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and cauls"	"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." 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.
2. Isaiah 3:18 ~ 2 Nephi 13:18	Tires like the moon	"and cauls and round tires like the moon"	"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." This doesn't appear to be translation error. Rather just a variant.
3. Isaiah 3:24 ~ 2 Nephi 13:24	Stomacher	"and instead of a stomacher, a girding of sackcloth"	"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 1535 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'." 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 remains unharmed.
4. Isaiah 7:23 ~ 2 Nephi 17:23	Silverlings	"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings"	"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." The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
5. Isaiah 7:25 ~ 2 Nephi 17:25	Mattock	"and all the hills that shall be digged with the mattock"	"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." The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
6. Isaiah 11:15 ~ 2 Nephi 21:15	Dry-shod	"he shall. . .make men go over dry-shod"	"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." 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.
7. Isaiah 13:14 ~ 2 Nephi 23:14	Roe	"and it shall be as the chased roe"	"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." Both the gazelle and roe work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
8. Isaiah 14:29 ~ 2 Nephi 24:29	Cockatrice	"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice"	"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." This verse is just giving "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 of snake), perhaps a descendant." 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 though? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem around 587 BC. We don't know and maybe can't know. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "Sargon put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.
9. Matthew 5:15 ~ 3 Nephi 12:15	Candle	"do men light a candle and put it under bushel?"	"The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, a small oil lamp." 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.
10. Matthew 5:15 ~ 3 Nephi 12:15	Candlestick	"nay, but on a candlestick"	"The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)." 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.
11. 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"	"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)." "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."
12. Matthew 6:28 ~ 3 Nephi 13:28	Lillies	"consider the lilies of the field"	"Here the Greek word krinon, modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower." The verses are Jesus' words that 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.

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 New Testament language as a means of communicating its message when it probably shouldn't be using the New Testament. Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James Bible in order to create the Book of Mormon. However, there are several reasons to reject these criticisms.

One question that remains to be answered about the Book of Mormon's and New Testament's intertextual relationship is if the Book of Mormon perpetuates translation errors from the King James translators rendering of the New Testament within its own text. That will have to be the subject of future, professional investigation from scholars. In the future, when we have the results of that investigation, those challenged by this criticism can utilize similar approaches used in this section of this article to respond to the criticism.

2. Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version of Isaiah, Micah, and Matthew in order to create the Book of Mormon?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #38: What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters? (Video)

Now we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. This is certainly the biggest concern of our critics. One critic asks "What 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?" There are several reasons to reject a charge of plagiarism:

1. First, as a mild corrective to the critic above, the "errors" he finds in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. They are also found in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible as well as modern editions of the King James Bible that are canonized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Readers can read the 1611 edition online and see for themselves. The modern KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. The critical author that the critic relies on did not claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. 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 "The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings." This, he believed, dated the Book of Mormon's composition to a more modern date rather than an ancient one. It 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. It can only 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.
2. Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Assuming that a modern person (or group of people) is the author of the text (which they aren’t), they are citing their sources directly which is definitionally not plagiarism. At worst, Joseph Smith (or his supposed conspirators) can only be said to be haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not plagiarizing Isaiah. As far as Micah is concerned, the Savior just launches into a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of what God the Father uttered to the prophet Micah in Micah 5:10–14 (3 Nephi 21:14–18). Why can't he just reproduce what his Father uttered? Give the same prophecy to the Nephites? That's not really plagiarism on Joseph's part. That's the Savior citing his source, God the Father, and transmitting the same prophecy given to Micah to the Nephites. As far as the Sermon on the Mount is concerned, it's obvious that the Savior would teach the same message to all people if he has a singular, unified message to teach them. The Savior repeating himself is not plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith. 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 (basically the Sermon on the Mount given at the Nephite temple in Bountiful) that show that Joseph Smith did not just mindlessly copy the Sermon on the Mount into the Book of Mormon. Why would Joseph or his conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience? Why would he copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with his source material?
3. A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. 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. Such a translation was "rare for its time." John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support. This throws a 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 go to the trouble of finding the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible and make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah as well? It's obviously possible that he did, but highly unlikely.
4. The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon (click here or here to read their statements).
5. 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 KJB. Joseph performed most of the translation in the open using the stone and the hat. Thus how do we get the language from the King James version of the Bible? Given this evidence, we could assume that the Biblical passages were revealed to Joseph during the translation process in a format almost identical with similar passages in the King James Bible and then amended them by revelation as he and the Lord felt was necessary. Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver so that Joseph is always 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?) and the fact that no witnesses to the translation report a Bible in use. 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 his 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible as a base text, that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism. Some scholars do believe that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. Always important to consider opposing views. Those scholars' arguments can be read in part here.
6. 

   Evidence Central, Evidence #361: Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary (Article)

   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 plethora of publications arguing this. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves. Or they can check out the helpful, easy-to-read essay summary by Evidence Central to the right.
7. It is known that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible in October 1829, however, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.
8. Finally, 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". This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off of the KJV version of Isaiah. We can actually prove 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 prove that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. That is demonstrated by Book of Mormon Central in the link above and to the right. Thus there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon rather than mindless copy and pasting.

Of course, there are other ways that critics have tried to establish that Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Bible to create the Book of Mormon. For commentary on those criticisms, see the collection of articles at the link below.

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 exactly how/why did God allow the translation errors to exist in the Book of Mormon? We do not know the specific mechanism by which the biblical passages were included in the translation, therefore we cannot answer this question definitively based upon current historical information. We have good evidence that a Bible was not consulted during the translation process. That was laid out above. But it isn’t probative. It’s rather what is most likely the case.

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." Joseph Smith stated the following in July 1838:

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon? Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the book of Mormon. (Joseph Smith, (July 1838) Elders Journal 1:42-43.)

This theology of translation may feel a bit foreign and a bit strange to some Latter-day Saints, but that may only be because they’ve never studied this question as directly and intensely before: 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" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). He can sometimes exalt and use error for his own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this is “accomodation” in the study of theology. God can accommodate erroneous perspectives and even translations for higher, holier purposes and objectives. That should be comforting to us. Latter-day Saints should take comfort in fact that the Lord accommodates his perfection to our own weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Joseph Smith himself quoted from Malachi 4:5–6 in Doctrine and Covenants 128:17–18. You can read the full quote here. Notice what he says 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.” Joseph Smith is comfortable with obtaining a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% perfect in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes. We should be on the Lord’s and Joseph Smith’s page if we’re going to keep our faith in them and know what they want us to know.

Conclusion

If the errors do not lead us into bad understandings of God and do not prove that Joseph Smith was a plagiarist and mountebank, then why does God need to have a perfect translation? There is no need. We shouldn’t hold the Book of Mormon to a standard it (nor God nor Joseph Smith) never claimed for itself.

Notes