Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Christian Denominations
  8. / Mormon Religion
  9. / Mormon Scriptures

by carter8 on May 6th, 2005

carter8

Question

Help answer this question below.

Why is the Book of Mormon written in the vernacular of King James England?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 3 helpful answers below.

  • by Glenn Blaylock on May 7th, 2005

    Glenn Blaylock

    Because the KJV was the most used English translation of the Bible at the time of Joseph Smith, he use the vernacular for the translation of the Book of Mormon. It was considered to be a sign of respect for God's word. That is also why we generally use that vernacular when we pray, to show respect to our Heavenly Father.

    *******************
    John Pacella: So, it sounds like the Book of Mormon was not a character to character translation from the golden plates.

    John, you are showing a lack of understanding of just what language is and what a translation is. Language is a system of sounds, symbols, and/or signs that convey ideas. No two languages do this in exactly the same way. Many languages (if not all) have words that convey ideas that really don't translate into other languages. Therefore, when you translate from one language to another, what the translator is doing is trying to find the words in the second language that convey the same ideas as those used in the original. Since this is a best fit process, no translation is going to be perfect. Take a look at a King James translation of the Bible. Take note of all the places were words are printed in italics. The reason those words are in italics, is to indicate places where the translators couldn't agree on what word to use. The italicized words are just the ones that the majority agreed were the most correct.

    So, no, the Book of Mormon is not a character to character translation, but neither is the Bible.

    (By the way, a character to character translation would only produce a text that would use different characters to to indicate the sounds of the letters in the original text. It would not be a translation of the actual words. I think that you really meant to write a "word for word" translation. Either way my answer still applies.)

    *******************
    "Raymond Krueger: Actually, the italics in the KJV denote words that were not found in the original language, but added so it made sense."

    That was not my understanding, but I am willing to admit that I could be wrong on this. I would, however, be interested in knowing the authoritative source on which you make this assertion.

    In any event, either way, it still supports the point I was trying to make, namely that the Bible is not a character for character translation from the original texts, nor is it a word for word translation. No translation ever will be.

    *******************
    "Anonymous: Oh Dear, Hebrew has no vowls! The Greek alphabet only goes upto Omega! ........What Now? LOL"

    Actually, this is not entirely true. According to a Jew that I knew many turnings of the seasons ago, Hebrew actually does have vowel characters. It's just that the vowel characters aren't commonly used in formal writing. If I understood him correctly, the vowels are much smaller characters than the consonants and are only used when first learning to write in Hebrew. They are dropped later as the writer become more proficient.

    The man from whom I learned this bit of information was fluent in many languages. However, when ask how many languages he knew, he would launch into a discourse on the difference between a language and a dialect that ultimately didn't answer the question. I do remember one time which he got a hold of letter that I was sending to my parents and wrote "Air Mail" on the envelope in many different languages.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 14th, 2009

    Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here

    Your question is a GREAT question! In fact, as another commentator has so correctly observed:

    "Why was the Book of Mormon cast into the KJV style? "...there is a continual use of the 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye', as well as the archaic verb endings 'est' (second person singular) and 'eth' (third person singular). Since the Elizabethan style was not Joseph's natural idiom, he continually slipped out of this King James pattern and repeatedly confused the norms as well. Thus he lapsed from 'ye' (subject) to 'you' (object) as the subject of sentences (e.g. 'Mos. 2:19; 3:34; 4:24), jumped from plural ('ye') to singular ('thou') in the same sentence (Mos. 4:22) and moved from verbs without endings to ones with endings (e.g. 'yields . . . putteth,' 3:19)."
    (The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon, by Wesley P. Walters, 1990, page 30)

    One could surmise that in the culture of the 1800's King James English implied that what was being said was "Holy" or "Sacred" relative to the colloquial English of the period.

    For example, if you read some of the "Low Church" period sermons they use King James English implying the words that they're using are "Holy" or "Sacred". And I sat through some Nazarene, Baptist and Methodist sermons as as boy where this technique was still in vogue.

    So Joseph Smith wasn't unique in following this practice. However, he was unique in that he WROTE in this style.

    If you READ the writings of period ministers they never WROTE in King James English. Rather they wrote in standard 19th Century English. So one could speculate that Joseph Smith - who had to have a secretary dictate for him due to his poor writing skills - was WRITING in the "holy and sacred" language that he heard from the pulpits of his time because he assumed that was how one spoken when your words were "inspired".

    I think that what troubles those of us who are Mormon Critics even more than that deviation from the norm was that Joseph Smith overlaid this practice onto content that was unorthodox, errant, and most certainly not divinely inspired. Regardless of what style or language you use the CONTENT of the Book of Mormon alone is a problem!

    So in the end the Book of Mormon becomes just an interesting work of fiction and nothing more. As Shawn McCraney, Author of "I Was A Born Again Mormon" put it:

    "Born-Again Mormons recognize the Book of Mormon as a piece of 19th century literary fiction aimed at teaching Jesus Christ. We reject the story of its origins."
    http://www.bornagainmormon.com/about-faith.htm

    So however you slice this salami there was really NO legitimate reason to WRITE in this style.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by TenLostTribes on February 23rd, 2010

    TenLostTribes

    Joseph Smith Jr. translated a ancient record of gold plates and the people in those times spoke in that way.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Why is the Book of Mormon written in the vernacular of King James England?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Beginning of confession
Why is the book of mormon written in king james english

Answerbag

a Demand Media company