The First Book of Napoleon and the War between the US and Britain were written in the same style of the King James Bible. So when he plagiarized those two books the style was left. To keep the style the same he probably used a King James Version Bible to plagiarize too.
I think in part it’s because to adopt a newer translation would tacitly acknowledge that there are better translations, which would take away their “to the extent that it’s been correctly translated” stance.
Also, that would discredit the swathes of King James errors in the Book of Mormon. For if God is inspiring the BoM translation, there’s no reason he doesn’t provide the correct text.
Because the KJV speaks in the way people of JS's time expected ghawd to speak - all Shakespearily and poetically. Indeed, from the way some mormons speak and write, this would seem still to be the case.
The false 17th-centyury English of the Book of Mormon is a clear sign that it is trying very hard to convince you that it's something which it's not. Big fail, for me.
>Because the KJV speaks in the way people of JS's time expected ghawd to speak
Bingo. This is exactly the reason. That is why Mormons still butcher English to sound pseudo-Elizabethan in their prayers.
It's got nothing to do with King James being a mason or anything else. It was the popular (Protestant) English translation by a very wide margin in the time of JS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2021 01:43PM by Brother Of Jerry.
Some of the uniquely Mormon doctrines are claimed to be supported by passages from the KJ. Any variances (clarifications) in newer translations could throw more doubt on their interpretation. This, I believe, would be especially true of modern language versions such as The Message and Phillips.
To their credit, Christian Scientists don't object to other translations, but their Boston-HQ-sourced weekly "lesson-sermon" of Scripture readings are all KJV (plus Eddy's "Science & Health," her "divinely revealed" textbook).
BTW, Phillips is a translation, but the Message is a paraphrase.
Because KJV is the ONLY version that has someone named Elias in it. Elias is the Greek version of Elijah.
In D&C 107 Joseph (who didn't know better) said he had a vision of Elias and no sooner had that vision faded, but the notable prophet Elijah appeared upon the scene.....
Except that they are the same guy. You will not find the name Elijah or Jeremiah, or Isaiah in the KJV New testament either.
ELIAS! That's my new name. Apparently exclusive, and, sexily Greek. Made possible by Joseph Smith. How lucky am I? Now all I have to do is go back to the church in full repentant mode just before I die and the CK is mine!
The LDS church does bot own the copyright to Joseph's translation of the bible. Emma kept the manuscripts and the church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints prints it under the title of "Holy Scripture"
However......
In the LDS version of the King James bible you can find many foot notes referring to Joseph's "corrections"
2. Recruits
A common excuse I heard growing up was that since (at the time) the King James version was the most common it was the best one to use with investigators. Why pitch a new bible and the book of mormon when it was hard enough to just sell the book of mormon.
3. The tower of babel
The church has an "approved" version for each language. Imagine having to translate Joseph's bible translation into a hundred languages. Again a money cost.
4. The bible just ain't that important.
With continual revelation the mormons just don't see the bible as anything more than an incorrect account of ancient history that has been superseded.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that LDS Inc should do its own translation of the Bible. There are plenty of easier to read alternatives to the KJV, that are widely accepted among Christian churches. Why the LDS insistence on sticking with the KJV?
I don't think the church could stomach using any modern version that would give credence to non LDS scholars, particularly if it meant such scholars would be in conflict with God's word as given by Joseph.
They have two options.
Follow Joseph's translation and toss it in the ring with modern scholars.
Cling to an old tradition, keep Joseph's work in the dark and ignore any advances in biblical scholarship.
Warren Jeffs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it because King James was a Freemason as l have > learnt? > > Is there something about the KJV bible that > resonates with Mormon doctrine?
Well, it was easiest to copy-
Obviously,
And still fool the Mormons...
You see...
That's was Joey wanted to do: have a bunch of fools following him, lost souls, confused people...
Because of the inertia of popular items/ prevalent items in culture at the time. The Bible was .....and still is...... the foremost prevalent religious scriptural text in western culture, the king james bible seemed like a most prevalent / most popular version of the bible. Con Man Joe is going to go with the item that seems to have the most standing and inertia to build inertia for his Book of MORmON hoax and Book of MORmON church scam.
IF something is/ was popular, credit grabbing con man swindler Joe Smith would try to find a way to link his Book of MORmON religion (SCAM) to it and take credit for it.
IF that flying spaghetti monster thing .....or anything else (like the Olympics)...... becomes overwhelmingly popular, then shifty LDS Inc and its Book of MORMON church would try to find a way to align their (Book of MORmON) scam with it.
at one point the (totally shameless) Book of MORmON church SCAM tried to take credit for the USA moon landing in 1969.
To make something sound "authoritative" or to add more gravitas, older forms based on words from aristocratic add-ons are used.
For example, we don't say "sheep meat," "cow meat," "pig meat," or "deer meat" in English. We used the words that the Romans and later Norman aristocracy used -- mutton, beef, pork, and venison.
We still use Latin for scholastic and academic purposes, Greek medical terms, Norman and Latin legal terms, and so on.
It's no different that having a shop or pub named "Ye Olde..." in Gothic letters.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2021 07:17PM by anybody.
But he had to start somewhere, and in the 19th century, What else was available? In English, just the KJV, and the Douay-Rheims which belonged to "The Great And Abominable Church". Simple practicality.
I can say that personally, reading the bible in old english, puts up a barrier emotionally. It feels more formal and less applicable to my life. I sort of have to translate it to its modern equivalent in my head. It becomes tiresome to read for an extended amount of time and listening to it clouds some of the meaning behind an antiquated language.
When you read a modern version like the NKJV or KJ21, its an easier read.
Slightly OT, but I read an apologist article a few years ago which took the position that not only is the poorly written Elizabethan English in the BoM NOT a problem, it gives MORE PROOF of its authenticity. You see, the BoM has elements of 17th Century English, but 13th, 14th 15th and 16th Century English!
In other words, according to this apologist, I could "translate" something and it would be perfectly acceptable to use bits from the last 400 years of language: "Verily, dude, I did perambulate with this bitchin' example of feminine pulchritude, and we did gaze upon some gnarly waves, and I did inquire of her this wench when I may I might visit upon her, and she did reply "On the 16th instance I shall happily return thine affections, my Lord, and we may gavotte, and gambol, jitterbug, and waltz and twerk, and feast upon hot dogs and petit fours and moonshine until the wee midnight hours."
Well, according to Grant Palmer, fully 25% of the BoM was lifted word for word from the KJV--I think he said from the 1769 edition of the KJV, or something like that. So, in order to maintain the continuity and making it square with the BoM, Mormons insist that members use the KJV, even if it's the most incorrect English translation of all the other English translations. Despite that, Mormons love to insist that it is the "most true" translation of the English Bible. Frankly, it's all bullshit.