? for the big-brained B of M experts...about translation

[SeattleUte]

Rebelex:

Why not consider the most logical explanation--the parts of the Book of Mormon that verbatum or nearly verbatum track the King James Version of the Bible were copied from a King James Version of the Bible. (This doesn't take a big brain, by the way.)

There is no one to one relationship between an original text and the words that might be chosen to convey its meaning in a second language, especially where that second language is English. A "translator" translating a foreign language text into English in the real world has the discretion to use any one of what is inevitably a number of choices in the English language to convey a concept in the original text--e.g., there may be one or any number of words (could well be one) in a Hebrew text meaning "goodbye" in strict translation, and the translator for any number of reasons may choose goodbye or adieu or farewell or so long or whatever. A translator may want to convey a mood better captured by farewell or adieu than goodbye. One of the wonderful things about the English language is that because its sources are so vast we have these choices.

Obviously any two translators may disagree about which words better convey the thought. This is why works such as Anna Karenina are continously the subject of fresh translations that sell briskly.

Indeed, Book of Mormon apologists often cite the inherently discretionary nature of translations in response to criticisms of the Book of Mormon containing a French word, adieu. I agree with them. But the logic works both ways, as I've explained above. While I was in the MTC my bishop said he presumed Joseph just referred to the King James Version because the work had been done and it was more efficient. Maybe that explanation will work for you.