Rawe/Randy: Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English.
Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C. So much research has been done on this topic that it’s best I just point the way. Suffice it to say that the Book of Mormon is the first historical book to mention that Egyptian had been modified and reformed by anyone anciently. Since 1830, archeologists have found a number of reformed Egyptian texts, reformed Greek texts and other writings that were used to spell out other languages. My wife sends her relatives a “reformed” English, where she uses English letters to spell out words in her native Farsi. This is what our scholars believe Lehi and his family did: spell out Hebrew using an Egyptian shorthand (which we now know was common in 600 B.C.) And though no examples of Nephi’s reformed Egyptian have been found as complete text, there are examples of individual characters having been used.
- Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters
- The Isaiah Problem in the Book of Mormon
- The Wheel in Ancient America
- Nephi or Moroni?
- Shiz, the Headless
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8TXk-QiS6I
.
When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.
What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything — maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.
You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.” In other words, all through the history of mankind, the Lord has never had a church or a movement representing him in which he did not operate through prophets, angels, visions, priesthood, miracles and power. And each time he has manifested his power, there are many people who simply will not accept it. There were those in the days of Jesus who, after hearing him, really believed he was nothing but an intenerate preacher who deceived his followers. The entire world at that time, led by the Greeks, completely rejected the idea that a living man, once dead, could rise again. It was as hilarious to them as the gold plates were in the days of Joseph Smith. Often the apostles would preach Christianity to the Greeks, who would listen intently until the resurrection was mentioned, then they laughed and frequently chased their speakers from their midst. It was the one big thing the early saints just couldn’t get over. It took a thousand years before people began to believe.
Mormons know that Jerusalem was destroyed years after 600 B.C. because Nephi records entering the city several times during that year and it was still intact. He didn’t find it in ruins. It wasn’t until a number of years later when his father learned by revelation that the city was destroyed (most likely in 587 or 589). Proving that that’s when Jerusalem was destroyed would, in itself, not prove that the Book of Mormon was a true record. But then there’s Nahom, being right where Nephi said it was, and indisputable archeological evidence that it was there in 600 B.C.; and in 1996 it was found to be a burial site. (How did Joseph Smith know that?) Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable” canyon with a “river of water” continually flowing through it and an encampment that dated back to 600 B.C. with an altar, indicating that someone there had priesthood. Again, it is right where Nephi said it would be. Then, if one continues to follow Nephi’s directions, then end up in a lush, tropical area by the sea on the coasts of the desert in a region our critics said it could never be. And it had fruit, grains, honey, bees, trees suitable for building a ship, a protected harbor, enough iron ore to build all the tools you would need and a steep cliff, that met the criteria for the one Nephi’s brothers almost pushed him from. And all this stuff is documented, photographed and videoed. Again, it’s all in the Book of Mormon in areas where our critics for years have said these things couldn’t be.
People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom.
In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost. And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth. And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God. So if he’s really a prophet, this means you can treat the Book of Mormon as though it was written in English, for God is its translator and bears all responsibility for its outcome. And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein. Many, in fact, have been discovered to be Hebraisms (text that makes sense in Hebrew, but makes for very bad English).
.
