Mormons, Why is it the Book of Mormon plagiarises 1611 King James English?

Extensive sections of the second book of Nephi come from the book of Isaiah. Apparently, Nephi read these scriptures to his family and it is claimed these scriptures had only just been written. How amazing that the prophet Isaiah (circa 700 B.C.) used almost identical language to the style of English used in 1611. The real problem lies not in identifying particular instances of apparent direct quotations from the Authorised (King James) Version (AV), but in identifying the style used throughout. The Book of Mormon (BoM) does quote from the Bible, which would be fine, except that it uses the English language style of 1611 throughout the entire BoM although the plates were not written in English!

There is a rule of textual criticism. If a supposed ancient book quotes from a modern book then the book is not ancient. There are two possibilities. The Bible quotes the Book of Mormon. This is impossible, as Bible writers did not have the BoM in their possession. The Authorised Version translators did not either. The second possibility is that the BoM quotes from the Bible. This is the only possible alternative.

Some examples of plagiarism: The AV has, basically, two translations of the Hebrew verb 'hayah'. It renders it as "And it came to pass" or, "It came to pass". There are actually nearly 50 possible translations of this verb, so the AV fails to give nuances of meanings that would make for a better translation. This style is copied by the BoM writer to make his work sound like the Bible - the AV Bible. A good translation of the Hebrew verb would have many different phrases used.

The AV translates the Greek 'kai egeneto' as "And it came to pass". This happens in the synoptic gospels and Acts. Matthew and Luke likely used Mark as a source, including the "And it came to pass" terminology. Luke wrote Acts, so using that phrase again. But the BoM plagiarizes this AV style wholesale! This betrays a distinctive mannerism of an author. It is found in all but one of the books in the BoM. Yet the BoM claims to have been written by numerous authors.

Other textual items that show each of books of the BoM to have the same author:

Long, involved sentences.

Same vocabulary.

Outlandish distinctive names, many nowhere else ever heard of before.

Similar plot with little variation from beginning to end.

Similar prophetic message, the coming messiah, yet always in similar words.

Most of the books quote the AV.

Poor grammar and English usage throughout.

The BoM is thus demonstrated to be a relatively modern book written after 1611 A.D. and by one author. Source(s): Dr Charles Arthur Crane, "A Comparison of the Bible and Book of Mormon from a Text Critical View" (1982)

The Authorised Version of the Bible came out in 1611. The Book of Mormon was first published in March 1830. I have no explanation to offer as to why the BoM has extensively copied from the AV other than to comment that when Jesus gave up his spirit, he cried out "It is finished".

The first publications didn't have chapter and verse. Do you understand what a 'translation' is? Let me clue you in. You take a foreign language and you convert it into an understandable language. English of the 1800's was actually quite different than what we speak today. Languages 'reform' over the years. I think it would surprise us to look at a dictionary from the 1800's, I don't think it would include computer.

He translated the book into scriptural language, because he was told it was scripture. I mean really, do you think he should have used ebonics?

The book contained an ancient record called the brass plates, which the writers claimed was very similar to the Old Testament. In it were the writings of Isaiah, and these were transferred practically word for word. There are also identical wording's from Christ, do we suppose He would have said similar things in America that He did in Jerusalem. Pretty sure He would.

See both of these questions are very easily understood, and rectified.... yet critics continue to bring them up.

Oh by the way, did you know the historical egyptian record says nothing about Moses and the Israelites?

Edit:It most certainly would not resemble the early writings you are talking about, Joseph Smith was familiar with the KJV New Testament, when we translate something it tends to resemble what we are familiar with, lol. How in the world would his translation resemble something he is not familiar with!

You may be under the impression that each individual word, phrase, sentence structure, etc, should absolutely resemble the original author's, this would not be a translation... it would be a direct copy. And even then it is not really possible as some languages don't even have a word for things in another language. For example:Joseph Smith translated horse, it could have been a donkey, or some other type of riding animal. Not saying this is true, it's just an example.

Edit:Starlight, well if it's not found in any historical document, then a critic would say (as they say on a regular basis about the Book of Mormon) it simply didn't happen. I have a feeling they would certainly have mentioned it, but put a spin on it different than the Bible. Playing devils advocate here...

First of all, the Book of Mormon was written using reformed Egyptian characters, but the verbal language was Hebrew.

Secondly, more than half of the verses in the Book of Mormon Isaiah differ from the KJV Isaiah.

Thirdly, this isn't the only example of a translation relying on the King James Version for the bulk of translation while modifying it where the translations differ. Much of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been translated in the same fashion. Apparently it is an accepted practice in order to highlight differences.

Fourth, there actually is strong archeological evidence of Egyptian influence, since it was discovered earlier this year that the Mayans used both the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit in constructing their art/buildings. The hundreds of pyramids in Mesoamerica is an additional correlation. The basic structure is identical to the older Egyptian pyramids. The Book of Mormon - for its part - describes an Egyptian system of bartering grain using weights of gold and silver. This is way beyond the knowledge that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries would have had.

Fifth, there are passages in the Book of Mormon that match the KJV, and there are passages which match the Great Book of Isaiah found at Qumran. Since the Great Book of Isaiah wasn't discovered until 1949, one wonders how Joseph Smith plagiarized it.

1. Plagiarism is claiming a writing as your own that was actually written by another person. If you read the Book of Mormon, you'll see that this is not the case.

2. Joseph translated the plates into what his religious language was. It wasn't how he spoke in regular conversations, but it was the language he associated with spiritual matters. If you read the Book of Mormon in any other language, you'll find that it is translated into older or more formal types of language that what is currently used. On my mission I taught a family of Mongolians. They said that the Mongolian language used in that translation of the Book of Mormon hadn't been used for over a hundred years. I think it helps people actually think about what they're reading. It's more difficult to speed read in an unfamiliar dialect.

3. The people came from Jerusalem, not Egypt.

4. They wrote in what they termed 'reformed Egyptian' which probably just means some type of hieroglyphs because their usual writing style was not conducive to making records on a limited space of metal plates.

I hope that helps.

When you translate from one language to another, you can make it whatever you want.

For instance, the spanish word vamanos you can translate it "Let's GO!" or "Let's Get out of here!" or "VAMOOSE!" or even "Let us remove ourselves, now!" Not all are literal translations, but they pretty much all say the same thing.

As for plagiarism, look up the definition. Joseph Smith never claimed anything as his original work, let alone stole from the Bible.

IMHO, when God gave Joseph Smith the translation of the plates, he had him do it in the same sort of language of the KJV of the Bible which was probably the standard translation everyone then was used to. If it sounded like the Bible, then maybe it would be more readily accepted as scripture.

Because for all his sly cleverness, Smith was no scholar or forward thinker. He thought pastorally, assuming the world would stay as it was in his time. Never once did he realize the KJV is yet just another in an unbroken string of updated language translations, not the be-all and end-all of bibles. If Smith was born in our time, he would have simply plagiarized verses lifted from the New International Version and similarly twisted them to his own designs.

God didn't inform His personally hand-picked "profit" of changing future mass communication methods? How very clever of our forever-sighted God.

Many people who have not had any experience with spiritual things do not understand how God speaks to us. He does so in our own language. The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith and was written in his own language.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding (D&C 1:24)

I really like this story, it involves a golden book called the plates and once transcribed by the person whom found them and then he gave them back to the angel and now their gone. Isn't that convenient reminds me of the invisible emperor's clothes. Oh, what a wonderful fairytale!

They tell me that it is because the Holy Ghost inspired them and that is why they even got the words in italics.

There is of course no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as you say.

The Dead Sea scrolls are similiar but not that similiar.

@Mickey yea a God takes away a whole slave nation from the greatest nation (Eqypt) who worship Alligator Gods and Cats and you think they are going to leave a record of an israel God that overruled their God's and took their slave labor away...I think not!