Transcription
Do you remember when I said this? Is this the first time an apostle has quoted scripture not as found in the church's standard works? Well, apparently not. We'll come to that in a full video.
But for now, the question is, is this significant? Well, it turns out it was because I was talking about Mormon apostle Draf Hukdorf quoting from a Bible other than the King James version, which until yesterday was the de facto Bible that was to be used within Mormonism when studying the Bible in English. But now it's acceptable to use other English translations. No big deal, right?
Well, if you're an apologist defending the Book of Mormon, it might be because a common way to try and explain the presence of exact quotes from the King James version of the Bible in the Book of Mormon is to claim >> the scholars of King James had spiritual prompings in their translation work. >> Coupled with the church's article of faith that states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." And that creates an environment in which not only does it matter what translation of the Bible is used, but in which the King James version was the most correct translation of the Bible. Hence why God chose to put its words in the Book of Mormon.
So stepping away from the King James version now, even if it's only to allow other translations, is surely a recipe for at least some doctrinal confusion, potentially the very kind of confusion that the Mormon Church was founded to correct. It also then begs the question, why were the words of the King James version present verbatim in the Book of Mormon if there is nothing preferential or inspired about that specific translation?
As always, let me know what you think in the comments.