Brigham Young if Book of Mormon Was Translated Again It Would Be Different

Fair Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Relationship of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to the Book of Mormon

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Why does the Book of Mormon match the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and then closely?
• Question: Why are many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon identical to those in the Male monarch James Bible?
• Question: Do academic translators re-create translations of other documents to use every bit a "base text"?
• Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not lucifer known Biblical manuscripts?
• Question: How do we explain multiple "Isaiahs" and the Volume of Mormon?

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to accommodate my purpose as information technology stands.

—Joseph Smith, referring his translation of Malachi (Doctrine and Covenants 128:18)

∗       ∗       ∗

Question: Why does the Book of Mormon match the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible then closely?

Some take presumed that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized equally existence from the Bible

Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. Some people have long adopted the position that Joseph Smith only copied the King James Version (KJV) Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church building members have presumed that the shut lucifer betwixt the texts indicates that Joseph but opened a Bible and copied those capacity when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized equally being from the Bible.

The purposes of the Volume of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS practice non believe in one stock-still, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the unremarkably known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the last give-and-take" on a given concept or passage—standing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church building notice themselves, precludes such an intent.

Joseph did not believe that in that location was "1 and only one" true translation of a given passage or text. The Book of Mormon is "the virtually right book" in the sense that it those who read and obey its precepts will depict nearer to God than in reading any other book. This is not a merits virtually textual perfection or inerrancy (which the book itself insists will all the same be present--title page, Mormon 9:31). In fact, Brigham Young taught that the Volume of Mormon text would take been unlike if it were redone later:

Should the Lord Almighty ship an affections to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to exist re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, and then the heavens send along their blessings. ^[1]

Question: Why are many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon identical to those in the King James Bible?

Witnesses to the translation procedure are unanimous that Joseph did non have whatsoever books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating

There are several problems with the idea that Joseph simply copied passages from the Holy Bible.

i) Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not take any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a afterwards interview:

I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to accept been established by divine direction. I have complete religion in information technology. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote twenty-four hours later twenty-four hour period, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his chapeau , with the rock in information technology, and dictating 60 minutes subsequently 60 minutes with goose egg between us.

Q. Had he not a volume or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

A. If he had annihilation of the kind he could not accept concealed it from me.^[2]

Martin Harris likewise noted that Joseph would translate with his face up cached in his hat in order to utilise the seer stone/urim and thummim. This would brand referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a lid, and put his face in the lid, cartoon it closely effectually his face to exclude the calorie-free; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...^[3]

2) It is non articulate that Joseph even endemic a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery later purchased a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph'southward straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.^[4]

3) It is not clear that Joseph's Biblical noesis was at all wide during the Volume of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each judgement, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I fabricated a fault in spelling, he would finish me and correct my spelling, although information technology was impossible for him to come across how I was writing them down at the fourth dimension. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any fourth dimension he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without whatever hesitation, and one fourth dimension while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale every bit a canvass, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a express cognition of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.^[5]

Emma also noted that

Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; permit lone dictating a book like the Volume of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," every bit much so as to whatever i else.^[six]

And, if Joseph was simply inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more than obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.

4) If Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and circuitous text that made no reference to Biblical citations at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the Holy Bible KJV) with which his target audience was certain to exist familiar?

The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically pregnant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text

Fifty-fifty academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if information technology serves the purpose of their translation. For case, the discovery of the Dead Ocean Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. Notwithstanding, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely we are non expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into Male monarch James idiom and just happened to come upward with a well-nigh identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially dissimilar from already known Hebrew manuscripts.^[7]

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences betwixt the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had admission. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts concord with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to fence that there may not be a better way to return the text than the KJV—just, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a departure betwixt the DSS translation and the King James (or whatsoever other) translation represented a true difference in the DSS text, or simply the option of the DSS translators to meliorate existing translations.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely coordinating. For example, it is possible that nearly of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in diction betwixt the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can exist assumed to exist substantially the same. If i wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Volume of Mormon and the KJV, one has simply to go to the original manuscripts bachelor to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due merely to translator preference.

Since there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, this allows the reader to easily identify genuine differences betwixt the Isaiah texts of the Old Globe and the Nephites.

Bible text itself quotes extensively from past scripture

When considering the presence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it is also interesting to note that 1 Bible scholar has found that the four gospels adjure to the fact that Jesus Christ and the apostles consistently quoted scripture. He calculated that over "ten percent of the daily chat of Jesus consisted of Old Testament words quoted literally" and nearly 50% of the Lord's words as quoted by John were quotations from the Old Attestation.^[8]

When we consider the fact that Isaiah is the most quoted of all prophets, being more than oftentimes quoted by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John (in his Revelation) than any other Quondam Testament prophet, it should not surprise united states of america that both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants also quote Isaiah more any other prophet.^[nine] The Lord told the Nephites that "keen are the words of Isaiah," and the prophet Nephi confessed, "my soul delighteth in his words... for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him" (ii Nephi xi:2).

New Testament writers literally quoted hundreds of Former Attestation scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah

It is clear that the writings of Isaiah held special significance for Jesus Christ and Nephi (see two Nephi 11:8, 2 Nephi 25:5; 3 Nephi xx:11; 3 Nephi 23:1-three). Isaiah's prophecies might besides have been quoted ofttimes considering they were largely concerned with latter-day events. The Saints sympathize Isaiah to have foretold the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith (see Isaiah 49:), the gathering of Israel in the last days (Isaiah 18:), the coming along of the Volume of Mormon (Isaiah 29:), wickedness in the last days (Isa. 33), and the Savior's second coming, and the millennium (Isaiah 13:, Isaiah 26:, Isaiah 27:). While he as well wrote near the Savior's offset coming (Isaiah 32:1-4) and events in his own time (Isaiah 20,23:), almost of what he wrote about is yet to be fulfilled.^[10]

When one considers that New Testament writers literally quoted hundreds of Onetime Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah^[11] it should not surprise us that Volume of Mormon writers did too. Subsequently all, these writings were part of the onetime earth scriptures brought with them to the new globe one Nephi xix:22-23). If the prophets of the Book of Mormon had not quoted Isaiah we might have questioned the authenticity of their words. That they did quote him extensively shows that they understood his writings as did Jesus and other apostles and prophets.

Paul has been cited equally the well-nigh original of all New Testament writers but investigations of his epistles bear witness that Paul frequently quoted from classical writers, orators, dramas, law courts, sports commentaries, and aboriginal religious rites. Even the well-known Pauline formula of "organized religion, promise, and clemency," which appears too in the Book of Mormon, has been traced to Babylonian writings.^[12]

Analysis of Specific Passages

2 Nephi 14:5

Walter Martin claims that Isaiah 4:five is followed (mistakenly) by (two Nephi fourteen:v). The phrase "For upon all the glory shall be a defense" should actually exist "For over all the celebrity there will be a awning."

Martin ignores that as translation literature, the Book of Mormon may well follow the KJV when the documents upon which the KJV is based match those of the Nephite text. Book of Mormon variants likely reflect only theologically significant changes not available in the Old World textual tradition.

2 Nephi 22:ii

Some have questioned the use of the name JEHOVAH in 2 Nephi 22:2 and the use of some italicized Rex James Version words in the Book of Mormon. Information technology seems clear that Joseph Smith was led to translate many passages as they appear in the King James Bible and fabricated changes specifically by exception. Employ of the proper noun "Jehovah" which is an anglicized class of the Hebrew Yahweh, was common in the Bible^[13] and was also in common use in Joseph Smith's 24-hour interval.^[14] Although the name Jehovah is of more recent origin than the original Book of Mormon plates, it does not hateful this name could not properly be used in translating a more than ancient Hebrew championship denoting the eternal I AM. Why should Joseph Smith be criticized for using the same name that Male monarch James scholars used?

Question: Do bookish translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base of operations text"?

In some translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, approximately 90% is merely copied from the King James Bible

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely nosotros are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into Male monarch James idiom and just happened to come up with a nigh identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially dissimilar from already known Hebrew manuscripts.^[15]

The purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had admission. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this. Here, for instance, is how the showtime verses of Genesis are treated:

Dead Sea Scrolls Translation: ane In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [two And] the earth [was] formless and void; and darkness was upon the fac[e of the dee]p: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let at that place be light," [and at that place was lite. 4 And] God saw that the lite was expert, and God separated the calorie-free [from the darkness.] five And God called the light daytime, and the darkness he cal[led ni]ght. And there was evening [and there was morning,] one day.

KJV: ane In the start God created the sky and the globe. 2 And the world was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let in that location be low-cal: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that information technology was good: and God divided the low-cal from the darkness. v And God called the low-cal Day, and the darkness he chosen Night. And the evening and the morning were the first mean solar day.

We tin meet that information technology more often than not follows that aforementioned King James language. In places, it has variant readings, and information technology footnotes what ancient texts caused these different readings. Yous can likewise meet from the various punctuation marks that there is a system in place to assistance us understand what office of the text comes from which source. Why would a translation made in 1999 (170 years afterward the Book of Mormon gets published) mostly follow the King James Version? Information technology isn't because the Rex James Version is the best, or the easiest to understand. In 1830, it was the merely mass produced translation (the next major translation wouldn't be published for another one-half century). And information technology remains today 1 of the about common translations of the Bible. You don't have to be a specialist to compare the two texts and see what the differences are. In this way, we tin (as non-specialists) get a better experience for the diverse aboriginal versions of the biblical texts. The same is true for the Volume of Mormon except perhaps in opposite. By using the KJV language, we are probably beingness clued in to the fact that the potential differences aren't the important parts of the Book of Mormon. Rather than focusing on how this or that discussion was changed, we can focus on what the passages are trying to teach us.

This is not to argue that in that location may non be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of fourth dimension improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference betwixt the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a true difference in the DSS, or simply the option of the DSS translators to improve the KJV.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely coordinating

The situation with the Volume of Mormon is probable analogous. For case, most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not take differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which in that location were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the aforementioned. If 1 wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to become to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the of import clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

Furthermore, using a KJV "base text" as well helps us to place the source of some scriptural citations that might be otherwise unclear. Consider this bit from Jacob ane:7:

Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by whatsoever means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.

This sounds nice, but its real impact on our reading Jacob occurs when we recognize that Jacob is alluding to Psalm 95:8-11:

8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they accept not known my means: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should non enter into my rest.

Jacob wants u.s.a. to sympathize what follows in the context of Israel beingness led in the wilderness past Moses. Drawing that connection is hard plenty for people who don't have a lot of familiarity with the Old Attestation. Merely had it followed language not plant in the Bible they had (the KJV)—fifty-fifty if conceptually information technology was the aforementioned—it would have been far more difficult for readers to connect the two to understand the point Jacob was trying to brand.

In this mode, it makes a lot of sense for a translation—even a divinely inspired translation which is being read through revelation (from a seer stone) - to follow a conventional text where it duplicates the same original source material. It isn't just well-nigh trying to indistinguishable the source material, it is besides about getting the reader who and then reads the text to sympathise it.

Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith'due south 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections non match known Biblical manuscripts?

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did non consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is improve thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary". The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an comeback on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST likewise involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the mod reader. As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on lds.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the obviously and precious things that have been lost from the Bible". Joseph did non claim to exist mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and description based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modernistic reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—information technology allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"

It is of import to remember that Joseph did not consider i 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final give-and-take.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using unlike wording than the KJV (See Joseph Smith History one:36–39). Nonetheless, when Joseph quoted the aforementioned passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, just it is sufficiently plain to accommodate my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will exist smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject field or other-and behold what is that subject? Information technology is the baptism. for the dead (DC 128:xviii). (accent added)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was acceptable; for others, non. A key chemical element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the master instrument through which God continues to give noesis and agreement to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," merely are instead produced by fallible mortals. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' equally but the conversion of text in i language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included caption, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this low-cal.

An Example: The Lord's Prayer

There is a neat example of this kind of deviation in the Lord's prayer. Compare the following:

And lead united states not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Volume of Mormon).

And atomic number 82 the states not into temptation, but evangelize u.s.a. from evil (KJV Bible).

And suffer us not to be led into temptation, only deliver usa from evil (JST Bible).

The JST changes the argument to passive voice whereas the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon are in active voice. According to E. W. Bullinger, this particular scripture contains a Hebraism, namely, "agile verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the affair which the agent is said do." Consequently, Bullinger interprets the passage this manner: "Lead usa not (i.due east., endure us not to be led) into temptation."^[sixteen]

Adam Clarke agrees with Bullinger. He wrote this scripture means "'Bring non in,' or 'pb us not into.' (This is a mere Hebraism. God is said to do a matter which He simply permits or suffers to be done)."^[17]

In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament we read the same estimation. "This phrase then must exist used in the sense of permitting. Practise non endure u.s.a. or permit u.s.a., to exist tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God 'has such control over the states and the tempter, as to salvage us from information technology if nosotros call on him."^[18]

When properly considered, this passage is an instance of where the JST reading and the KJV/Book of Mormon are both right. The KJV and Book of Mormon are literal interpretations while the JST is an interpretive translation that is besides correct. Given Joseph's relative inexperience in prophetic interpretation in 1829, he would be far more likely to render a poetry literally than engage in interpretation.

Question: How do we explain multiple "Isaiahs" and the Book of Mormon?

The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several capacity from 2d Isaiah, who allegedly had not however written his material in fourth dimension for Nephi to quote from it

As function of the record Nephi creates for his people, he quotes heavily from the prophet Isaiah. The source for Nephi's text are the contumely plates that he and his brothers obtained from Laban before leaving Jerusalem. Traditionally, the Book of Isaiah has been understood to be the composition of a single author living before Nephi, and before the Babylonian exile. However, modernistic scholars have found evidence in the Book of Isaiah that it was written by multiple authors spanning periods of time before and during the Babylonian exile, including earlier and later Nephi and his brothers obtained the brass plates. Nephi quotes from some of the passages of Isaiah that scholars believe were written later on Nephi and his family unit left Jerusalem, creating a conundrum for students of the Book of Mormon.

The general division of Isaiah capacity according to this view looks like this:

• Ch. two-39, Outset Isaiah (Proto-Isaiah), written about 100 years earlier Lehi left Jerusalem, and then available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
• Ch. twoscore-55, Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah), written, at the earliest, 20-30 years afterward Lehi left Jerusalem, and so allegedly not available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
• Ch. 56-66, Tertiary Isaiah (Trito-Isaiah), written at least 60-seventy years afterward Lehi left Jerusalem, and and so not available to Nephi on Laban's contumely plates.

The claiming to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not even so written his cloth in fourth dimension for Nephi to quote from it. The primal question is, "Were those passages available to Nephi on the plates of brass?". If some parts of Isaiah were not written until after Nephi obtained the brass plates then they plainly would non be available for Nephi to quote from. This criticism/question is non new to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-twenty-four hour period Saints. For instance, the semi-official encyclopedic work Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992, 2007) broached it in their entry on Isaiah in the Volume of Mormon.^[19] Among the Latter-day Saints who are familiar with this issue there is more than than one approach taken. Some debate for unmarried authorship of Isaiah, disagreeing with multiple authorship theories of Isaiah. Others agree that the Book of Isaiah was authored by more than one person and wait for ways to resolve that with the Book of Mormon. We volition consider the latter position first.

Many Latter-24-hour interval Saint scholars and students take come to agree with mainstream biblical scholars who suggest that parts of the Volume of Isaiah were written by multiple authors and at dissimilar times

Many Latter-twenty-four hour period Saint scholars and students have come up to concur with mainstream biblical scholars who suggest that parts of the Book of Isaiah were written by multiple authors and at dissimilar times. In that location is no official position from the Church building that requires Latter-day Saints to encounter Isaiah equally having been written by i author. Therefore, Latter-day Saints are free to course their own opinions of this issue. Hugh Nibley summarizes the principal reasons why many believe Isaiah was written by multiple authors:

"The dating of Deutero-Isaiah rests on iii things: (ane) the mention of Cyrus (Isa. 44:28), who lived 200 years afterward Isaiah and long after Lehi; (2) the threats against Babylon (Isa. 47:i, 48:14), which became the oppressor of Judah after the days of Isaiah and (3) the full general language and setting of the text, which suggests a historical background usually associated with a after period than that of Isaiah."^[20]

Latter-day Saints who hold with this view practise not practise so because they don't believe that Isaiah could non prophecy of future events. Certainly it is within God'south power to have Isaiah predict the name of Cyrus, or for Isaiah to write as if he were experiencing the Israelite exile to Babylon which would non happen for a couple hundred years. Even so, information technology would be very unusual for these things to happen. Those who accept the multiple authorship of Isaiah ask questions similar, "Why would God accept Isaiah predict the proper name of Cyrus, which would have been meaningless to his audience, and not predict the proper name of the Jesus?" In other words, if God is going to reveal the futurity name of an important person, information technology would seem that Jesus' name would have priority over Cyrus' name. The same question could be asked well-nigh why God would have Isaiah write every bit if he were experiencing the Babylonian exile. It would make niggling sense to his contemporary audition, and would not be very helpful to them. They would be long expressionless before any of those prophecies made sense. Could it exist written like that to be a sign to future audiences that God has predictive ability? Possibly, simply to some that seems like an unusual and picayune thing for God to exercise.

The of import question to ask for the purposes of this study is not "Who wrote the text of Isaiah", but rather "When and how was the text of Isaiah written?".

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

The primary Isaiah passages constitute in the Book of Mormon are illustrated in the following table:

2 Nephi 12-24 quotes 1st Isaiah. This is not a problem because it is agreed by scholars that this writer wrote before Nephi obtained the brass plates. 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 7-8, and three Nephi 16:18-xx all quote from 2nd Isaiah, which is a trouble if those capacity were not written by 2nd Isaiah until afterward Nephi had obtained the brass plates. Forth with the quotations from the to a higher place table, Third Isaiah is alluded to in Jacob 6:iii of the Book of Mormon. It is important to think that the only part of 2nd Isaiah we need to account for is Isaiah 48-53 and the merely role of Trito-Isaiah (it should be remembered that some scholars reject trito-Isaiah) being the one verse from Isaiah 65 (65:2). Thus we have four chapters and 4 verses to business relationship for.

The development of the text of Isaiah

In that location are a few important primal points about the evolution of the text of Isaiah that may assistance resolve this challenge:

• 1st Isaiah wrote during a fourth dimension when a powerful nation, Assyria, threatened the destruction of Israel. While this was the immediate issue in 1st Isaiah'southward mind, he too may take been inspired to make full general prophecies about a more than future destruction of Israel. While non specifically mentioning "Bablyon" or "Cyrus", this 1st Isaiah may have made broad prophecies about a future threat to State of israel dissever from the immediate Assyrian threat.
• Latter-day Saints scholar Sidney B. Sperry has suggested that we pay attention to the research of several non-Latter-solar day Saint scholars who "held that Isaiah 40-66 arose in exilic times, but consisted in considerable mensurate of aboriginal prophecies of Isaiah, which were reproduced by an author of Isaiah'southward school living in the exilic period, because the events of the day were bringing fulfillment of the prophecies." In other words, our current Isaiah twoscore-55 (or 40-66) may originate in archaic writings of 1st Isaiah, but which were reworked and reinterpreted past second Isaiah. This is very likely the best approach and one the easily accounts for the both the essential unity of the text of Isaiah and the presence of material from other chapters. Marc Schindler described this approach in particular in this article from FairMormon papers.
• In that same vein, Latter-day Saint scholar Brant Gardner writes:

Rather than seeing the specificity of "Cyrus" or "Babylon" every bit denying Isaiah's authorship considering they must have been written subsequently, those same techniques of analysis suggest that others added those names after when fulfillment made the intent of the prophecy obvious. Cyrus might not have been named when Isaiah ben Amoz [1st Isaiah] wrote, only anyone living later on the fact would certainly recognize the name and perhaps "ameliorate" the original Isaiah text by adding the specifics of the fulfilled prophecy. If the earliest versions of Deutero-Isaiah were actually written by proto-Isaiah, they were later on redacted on the basis of the similar historical facts of devastation and hope of render from exile that were part of both the before Assyrian and later Babylonian captivity."

Issues of Translation

Notwithstanding, this doesn't quite settle the upshot yet. The question is asked, "What text was available to Nephi?" Nephi would have had available to him only the text of 1st Isaiah (which presumably would include the 1st Isaiah version of the 4 chapters and 4 verses of Deutero-Isaiah that we need), a text which perchance included wide and perhaps vague prophecies of the threat of a time to come exile of Israel. The prophecies on Laban's plates of contumely which Nephi was quoting from may not have specifically mentioned "Babylon" as that threat. Thus, what Nephi quoted as he inscribed on his plates would have been the original, early, 1st Isaiah version of Isaiah 48-52 and all of chs. ii-40. Yet, the text that we have in the Book of Mormon of Isaiah 48-52 quotes from the later, 2d Isaiah cloth (which is a reworked version of 1st Isaiah'south before cloth) as constitute in the KJV Bible. How can this be?

The answer to this question will involve a brief consideration of the translation process of the Book of Mormon. Some may believe that the Book of Mormon must have been a translation in which cipher only formal equivalency (give-and-take for word translation) would be what God would provide as the translation. The problem is that the Book of Mormon does not represent a one-for-i conversion of text from Reformed Egyptian to English. There is much linguistic communication, for case, that quotes, echoes, or alludes to the King James version of the Holy Bible. This includes the passages claimed to vest to Deutero-Isaiah. The Book of Mormon often does not translate the version that Nephi would have had, but simply uses the text every bit rendered in the King James Bible. Oddly enough, this really should non atomic number 82 i to believe that Joseph Smith merely plagiarized from it. Using the Original and Printer'due south Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-24-hour interval Saint scholar Imperial Skousen has identified that none of the King James linguistic communication contained in the Volume of Mormon could have been copied straight from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that spelling of words had indeed been standardized prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon (contrary to pop belief) and that Oliver Cowdery (Joseph's agent for the dictation of the Volume of Mormon), when quoting, echoing, or alluding to passages in Bible, consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't take misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJB.^[21] Additionally, it should be noted that the current edition of the Book of Mormon notes that "more half of the 433 verses of Isaiah that are used in the Book of Mormon" differ from the Isaiah text in the KJV "while about 200 verses accept the aforementioned wording as the KJV."^[22]

A Proposed Scenario

When considering the the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible (the absenteeism of a Bible now nearly-definitively confirmed past the manuscript evidence and the unequivocal statements of witnesses to the translation to the Book of Mormon), that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was complimentary to alter the text as would exist more comprehensible/comfy to his 19th century, Northeastern, borderland audience. This theology of translation may feel foreign and a bit strange to some Latter-day Saints, just it seems to fit well with the Lord'due south own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints should have comfort in fact that the Lord accommodates his perfection to our own weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building upwardly of Zion on the earth. Thus:

• As Joseph was translating the text of the Book of Mormon, he would find himself translating something that he recognized every bit being roughly like to texts from the Bible. This would occur most prominently when Nephi quotes from Isaiah.
• Instead of translating Nephi'south quotations of Isaiah word-for-word, the Lord gave the passages from Isaiah as contained in the KJV . This may have been done to cater to Joseph'due south gimmicky audience, to save fourth dimension, and to respect the aesthetic value that the KJV held at that time (and does now to an extent). The chapters of Isaiah that we find in the Book of Mormon were taken largely past Joseph Smith from the KJV Bible, instead of beingness translated from Nephi's version of that text. In other words, why reinvent the wheel when the work had already been done?
• As a issue of this, the Isaiah capacity on Nephi's plates would accept looked slightly different from the Isaiah capacity that we take now in the Book of Mormon. Recall, the just 2nd Isaiah chapters that show upwardly in the Book of Mormon are Isaiah 48-52 and we have just the 1 echo from Trito-Isaiah. Nephi's version of Isaiah 48-52 that he quoted on his plates was the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah which might not have included specific references to Babylon. The version of Isaiah 48-52 that nosotros take now in the Book of Mormon would non then be taken directly from Nephi'due south plates, but rather adapted from the KJV Bible for reasons suggested higher up. That version of Isaiah 48-52 is the older, reworked material of 2nd Isaiah which inserted specific references to Babylon.

One final observation should be made. Scholars believe that Isaiah chapter i was non part of 1st Isaiah's original book,^[23] but was a later add-on past a later writer, perhaps second or 3rd Isaiah. Information technology is noteworthy that Nephi begins quoting Isaiah ii and continues until Isaiah 14 without break, and never quotes Isaiah 1. If Isaiah chapter 1 was not yet a part of the record of Isaiah when Nephi obtained it would make sense that he would non quote Isaiah chapter ane.

Theories of A "Unmarried Isaiah" and the Book of Mormon

Some accept a conservative view and argue for the unity of Isaiah, suggesting that theories about multiple authorship are not correct. This approach was taken by one author in an old article in the Ensign. The following represents office of that answer that was given (the full text may be read on churchofjesuschrist.org at the link below):

Many not-LDS scholars claim that the second half of the volume of Isaiah was written later on the time Lehi left Jerusalem, Yet the Book of Mormon contains material from both halves. How do we explain this?

....

Literary style in Hebrew is much more than attainable to computer analysis than is English. This is partly because the Hebrew feature known as the function prefix can help identify speech patterns of a given author. For example, how an author uses Hebrew role prefixes, such as those that translate into "and in this," "and it is," and "and to," are expected to exist unique with him. Thus, comparison parts of an author's work with other parts, likewise as comparing his work with work by other authors, can yield statistical evidence for claims of authorship.

Accordingly, we coded the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah and a random sampling of xi other Old Testament books onto computer tape. three So, using a estimator, we compared rates of literary usage (such every bit unique expressions and idiomatic phrases including the function prefix and other such literary elements) from text to text. Since whatsoever author varies inside himself, depending on context, audience, his ain change of style, and and then forth, variations for a given writer were compared with variations betwixt authors for whatever literary element.

The results of the written report were conclusive: there is a unique authorship fashion throughout the various sections of Isaiah. The rates of usage for the elements of this particular style are more consistent within the book of Isaiah, regardless of the department, than in any other book in the study. This statistical evidence led the states to a single decision: based on style lonely, the volume of Isaiah definitely appears to be the work of one human being. The two parts of Isaiah near ofttimes claimed to accept been written by different authors, capacity one–39 and 40–66, were found to be more similar to each other in fashion than to any of the other eleven Sometime Testament books examined.^[24]

Eliminating the Crticism

Thus, to eliminate the criticism nosotros should recognize that:

• Nosotros accept four chapters and iv verses to account for. Nosotros don't demand to take the entire book of Isaiah date to a certain time—just those passages in the Book of Mormon.
• The Book of Mormon uses KJV Language. There are mayhap a few reasons for information technology: (1) Joseph'south model of revelation is one in which the Lord speaks afterwards the manner of their language. King James vernacular was their's (D&C 1:24), (2) The cease of that verse in Doctrine and Covenants suggests that he does this so that they tin come to understanding. So when we have King James linguistic communication in the Book of Mormon, it is to point out clearly what theological upshot is being engaged. The Book of Mormon teaches that this is one of its purposes in 2 Nephi 29; (3) If nosotros didn't become any linguistic communication from the Nephites that matched or alluded to King James Language, nosotros would be closer to thinking that they were trying to communicate an entirely different message or teach something else entirely.
• Literary arguments for dating a text are often highly subjective and most decumbent to disagreement. Many scholars employ narrative criticism to establish the dating of a text. It's one of the trickiest ways to date a text and several scholars have pointed out the fallacies of doing and then.^[25] This is pregnant: we have no manuscript testify that would constitute that there were multiple authors. The earliest manuscript of the text "ha[s been] dated using both radiocarbon dating and palaeographic/scribal dating[,] giving calibrated date ranges between 356–103 BCE and 150–100 BCE respectively."^[26]
• All information technology would really take to eliminate the argument would exist to find a copy of Isaiah—either in its wholeness or even just a couple of fragments that had portion(s) of deutero and trito Isaiah on them— within 7th century strata. The problems with this are that:
  • The texts themselves, if preserved, would nigh likely be contained inside temple deposits. These would have been ransacked by the Babylonians when they took State of israel captive circa 600 BCE. Upon taking Israel, the Babylonians would have pillaged and destroyed the Israelite's temples, records, and other holding. This is actually recorded in the Old Testament itself.^[27] The most likely temple to find the texts from Isaiah in would be the Temple of Solomon which is buried nether the Dome of the Stone in Jerusalem. It is archaeologically inaccessible by law for religious and political reasons.
  • The texts, if they survived outside temple deposits and survived Babylonian or other foreign invasion, would have been deposited in environments for which information technology is hundred-to-one they would survive for hundreds of years. For example, K.A. Kitchen commenting on arguments against the historicity of the Exodus narratives in the Bible, wrote the following:

  • Egyptian gods gave only victories to kings —and defeats indicated divine disapproval, not applause! Information technology is no use looking for administrative registers giving the Hebrews "community clearance" to clear out of Arab republic of egypt. In fact, 99 per centum of all New Kingdom papyri are irrevocably lost (administrative and otherwise), the more than so in the sopping mud of the Delta; the few survivors hail from the dry out sands of Sawwara and Upper Egypt, far away from Pi-Ramesse'due south total of our administrative texts so far recovered from Pi-Ramesse!^[28]

Thus, depending on what ecology conditions obtained upon deposition, the papyri or scrolls upon which the text of Isaiah that we would need to make a fully-informed determination on authorship may be lost. But even in adept taphonomic weather, information technology may be years earlier such a document might be uncovered. Consider that one archaeological excavation took some 30 years to uncover a Philistine cemetery in southern Israel.^[29] These processes take fourth dimension, and we shouldn't expect everything to come to u.s.a. so easy. Nosotros should remain patient on the Lord (i Nephi 21:23) and know that sometimes nosotros may never notice remains of what we're looking for. That this argument against the Volume of Mormon is an argument from silence is the most damning signal against it and one that should provide all of us interruption when evaluating how problematic it really is for our organized religion. In lite of the foregoing analysis, perhaps we shouldn't stress so much.

Additional Reading

• Spencer, Joseph Yard. The Vision of All: Twenty-v Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi'southward Record. Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2016. This book is remarkable in that, as part of its analysis, it demonstrates clearly that the choice of Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon is one non done at random but that at that place is a unifying theme and purpose that drives Nephi's use of Isaiah.
• Sperry, Sidney B. "The 'Isaiah Problem' in the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Compendium. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968. An explanation of the problem and response from Sidney Sperry concerning the "Isaiah Problem."
• Jackson, Kent P. "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church building History. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Visitor, 2016. This volume chapter responds to mutual questions about the and so-chosen "Isaiah Problem" and offers resource for further study and aid in resolving those questions.
• Carr, David. "Reaching for Unity in Isaiah," Periodical for the Study of the Old Testament xviii, no. 57 (1993): 61–lxxx. There is a large bibliography of scholars who believe in a single Isaiah in notes 3-5 of this commodity.
• Harrison, R. 1000. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grant Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969, 371–78.
• LaSor, Due west. S., D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.
• Parry, Donald; Welch, John W. Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998. One of the largest studies done on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. John Welch offers his perspective on the "Isaiah Trouble" near the end of the book.
• Adams, Larry Fifty., and Rencher, Alvin A. "A Estimator Analysis of the Isaiah Authorship Problem," BYU Studies 15 (Autumn 1974): 95-102. This analysis takes the English KJV text of Isaiah and through textual assay argues that in that location was i singular author of Isaiah. That this study was done with the English translation of Isaiah instead of the original Hebrew is a weakness (though perchance non necessarily fatal to the authors' arguments).
• Andersen, Francis Fifty. "Style and Authorship," The Tyndale Paper 21 (June 1976): ii.
• Gileadi, Avraham. A Holistic Structure of the Book of Isaiah. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Immature Academy, 1981.
• Kissane, Eastward. J. The Volume of Isaiah. 2 vols. Dublin, Ireland: 1941, 1943.
• Ludlow, Victor L. Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet. Table salt Lake City, 1981.
• Tvedtnes, John A. "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," Isaiah and the Prophets, ed. M. Nyman. Provo, Utah: 1984.
• Young, Edward J. Introduction to the Former Testament. One thousand Rapids, MI: 1949.

Book of Mormon Primal KnoWhys (including article and video):

• Why did Jesus mix together Micah and Isaiah?
• Why did Jesus quote all of Isaiah 54?
• What Vision Guides Nephi'south Option of Isaiah Capacity? This article demonstrates that the selection of Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon was non random and that it indeed follows a formula created by Nephi for specific homiletic purposes.

Saints Unscripted:

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Religion and Scholarship:

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Their Imperfect Best: Isaianic Authorship from an LDS Perspective"

Daniel T. Ellsworth, Interpreter: A Periodical of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (September 15, 2017)

For Latter-day Saints, the critical scholarly consensus that most of the book of Isaiah was not authored by Isaiah often presents a problem, specially since many Isaiah passages in the Volume of Mormon are assigned mail-exilic dating by critical scholars. The critical position is based on an entirely dissimilar gear up of assumptions than most believers are accustomed to bring to scripture. This article surveys some of the reasons for the critical scholarly position, too providing an alternative set of assumptions that Latter-day Saints tin use to understand the features of the text.

Click hither to view the complete article

To see citations to the disquisitional sources for these claims, click here

Notes

1. ↑ Brigham Immature, Journal of Discourses nine:311.
2. ↑ Joseph Smith 3, "Concluding Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate ii (Oct. 1879): 51
3. ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Mo.: due north.p., 1887), 12; Cited ofttimes, including Neal A. Maxwell, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign (January 1997): 34–41.
4. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Utilise of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith'due south Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books viii/2 (1996): 326–372. off-site
5. ↑ Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Periodical of History 9 (Jan 1916): 454.
6. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Terminal Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate ii (Oct. 1879): 51
7. ↑ "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald, (1 Oct. 1879): 290.
8. ↑ Jay P. Green Sr., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English (Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1995), 975.
9. ↑ See LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, 707.
10. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "10 Keys to Understanding Isaiah," Ensign (October 1973): 78–83.
11. ↑ See LDS KJV, Bible Lexicon, 756-59
12. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2d edition, (Vol. 7 of the Nerveless Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Enquiry and Mormon Studies, 1988), 128. ISBN 0875791395.
13. ↑ See Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:xviii; Isaiah 12:ii; Isaiah 26:iv.
14. ↑ Meet such scriptural examples as DC 109:34,42,56,68; DC 110:ane-three; DC 128:ix. Run into also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Common salt Lake City: Deseret Volume Visitor, 1976), 220, 221, 250–251. off-site
15. ↑ See, for example, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flintstone, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2012). Other examples of similar choices in translation include: Robert H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), Theodor H. Gaster, The Expressionless Ocean Scriptures, 3rd ed. (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976), and Robert Lisle Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Baptist Business firm, n.d.).
16. ↑ See East. West. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used In the Bible: Explained and Illustrated (London: Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898), 819-824.
17. ↑ Adam Clark, Commentary an the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, (Thou Rapids: Baker Book, 1979), 778.
18. ↑ Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, edited by Ingram Cobbin, (G Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1980), thirty.
19. ↑ Legrande Davies, "Isaiah: Texts in the Book of Mormon," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel Ludlow (New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1992 and 2007). Worthy of mention is that ii then-electric current apostles, Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and 1 futurity apostle, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, were advisors for the encyclopedia and its editorial lath. They are recognized in the acknowledgements to the encyclopedia.
20. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. seven of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Visitor ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), "Chapter 5: The Bible in the Book of Mormon", subsection "The Book of Mormon Explains Isaiah". ISBN 0875791395.
21. ↑ Interpreter Foundation, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," <https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/> (25 Jan 2020).
22. ↑ See footnote 2a in 2 Nephi 12 in either the 1989 or 2013 editions of the Volume of Mormon.
23. ↑ John Barton, Isaiah 1-39, (London: T&T Clark International, 1995), 25–26. See also Michael Fallon, "Introduction to Isaiah forty–48," Isaiah School in Exile—Isaiah 40–55 (half dozen September 2014), 194.
24. ↑ L. La Mar Adams, "I Have a Question," Ensign xiv (Oct 1984): 29.
25. ↑ Benjamin D. Sommer, "Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism," The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Electric current Enquiry eds., Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 85-108.
26. ↑ Wikipedia, "Isaiah Roll," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Scroll> (25 January 2020). Citing Jull, Timothy A. J.; Donahue, Douglas J.; Broshi, Magen; Tov, Emanuel, "Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert," Radiocarbon 37-ane (1995): 14. doi:x.1017/S0033822200014740. Also citing All Virtually Archaeology, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," <https://world wide web.allaboutarchaeology.org/expressionless-sea-scrolls-2.htm> (25 Jan 2020).
27. ↑ Wikipedia, "Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC)> (25 January 2020).
28. ↑ Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Sometime Attestation (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, MA: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 311.
29. ↑ ABC News, "Philistine cemetery uncovered in archaeological dig in Israel, Goliath's people were 'normal sized'," <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/old-bones-cast-new-light-on-goliath-people/7584904> (4 November 2019).

morganhinglew38.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_Bible/Joseph_Smith_Translation/Relationship_to_the_Book_of_Mormon