Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)

From: george murphy (
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 08:15:55 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)"

    Iain Strachan wrote:
    I should point out that I didn't mean to criticize the KJV
    translation as such; in a way it was just a bit of fun, to see what
    Burgy would come up with to "defend" it. However, the issue was in
    my mind because I got cornered by a Mormon in the middle of Oxford
    the other day, and I asked him why the Book of Mormon, which was
    written by Joseph Smith in the 19th Century, is cast in the same kind
    of language as the KJV. He responded that this was the kind of
    language the original document in "reformed Egyptian" was written in
    so it had to be translated in that way. It seemed a bit beyond him
    that one would translate literally using the contemporary equivalent
    words, and not archaic language. He also said that the Mormons only
    accept the KJV as authoritative, and don't believe in modern
    translations. Well, I guess it's better than having your own
    translation that twists things round to suit your own purposes, like
    the JW's.

         Joseph Smith also produced "an inspired revision of the
    authorized version", of which I have a copy of the NT printed by the
    _Reorganized_ [i.e., non-Utah] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
    Saints. To give you a taste, Jn.1:1 reads
         "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And
    the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son
    was with God, and the Son was of God."
         I don't know what authority, if any, the Utah Mormons ascribe to this.

    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 10:08:32 EDT