From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 08:15:55 EDT
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.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 10:08:32 EDT