why is the book of mormon written in the ME of 1611?

Question

why is the book of mormob written in the Middle English of 1611(like the King James Bible) if it was legitimately translated to the english of the 1830's?

Answer 1

seems most likely that just as the Koran refers to the Bible to lend it the 'air of inspiration', so it goes with the book of Mormon.
The stylistic use of "King James" language used at the time the "golden plates" were "revealed to Joseph Smith", including translational errors of verses from the KJV included in the Book of Mormon, drive home the point that it might really be a forgery, created by a man who was bent on obtaining attention and notoriety.
()(

Answer 2

Joseph Smith studied the King James Version of the Bible with a passion. When he translated the Reformed Egyptian characters from the gold plates into English, he naturally used the biblical language that he was accustomed to reading.

Yours is a good question.

Note to David: There were no Mormon elders until just before Joseph Smith had founded the Church in April 1830. The call to use biblical language was a natural inclination of Joseph Smith.

Answer 3

If God intentionally dictated the Book of Mormon translation in a way that sounds like the KJV, one would expect the imitation of style and diction to be flawless. Yet many who are familiar with the KJV and who read the Book of Mormon report that the Book of Mormon’s King James English sounds exaggerated or even stilted. This seems to indicate that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon, and that he made a less-than-perfect attempt to imitate the Bible’s diction and syntax.

Either the Book of Mormon is a perfect imitation of King James English (and therefore presumably the work of God) or it is a less-than-perfect imitation (and therefore presumably a human composition).

Thanks to computers, it is possible to measure this exaggeration in a quantifiable way.

What is consistent about the Book of Mormon’s style is its exaggeration of the formality and vocabulary of Old English. “It came to pass”, “insomuch”, “behold”, and “wherefore” are used significantly more often in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. “Did” is also used considerably more often, demonstrating that there is a uniform preference in the Book of Mormon for passive sentence construction (i.e. “he did go up unto them” as opposed to “he went up unto them”). Some of these are used so much more often in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible that they start to sound stilted even to the casual reader.

What are the odds that an ancient redactionist so drastically overused terms and syntax that in an English translation would sound like the King James Version? This exaggeration can only have originated with Joseph Smith, who had the motive to imitate the King James Version’s language and the human fallibility to do it poorly.

The overuse of these phrases and of passive sentence construction in the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith’s imperfect attempt to emulate the style of the King James Version of the Bible.

Answer 4

the first guides did no longer have financial ruin and verse. Do you realize what a 'translation' is? enable me clue you in. you're taking a overseas language and also you change it into an comprehensible language. English of the 1800's develop into truly fairly diverse than what we communicate in the present day. Languages 'reform' through the years. i imagine it might want to wonder us to seem at a dictionary from the 1800's, i do not imagine it might want to include computer. He translated the e book into scriptural language, because he develop into instructed it develop into scripture. I recommend truly, do you imagine he must have used ebonics? The e book contained an historic list said as the brass plates, which the writers claimed develop into very equivalent to the former testomony. In it were the writings of Isaiah, and those were transferred virtually note for note. There are also same wording's from Christ, can we think He might want to have suggested similar issues in u.s. that He did in Jerusalem. particularly particular He might want to. See both easily a kind of questions are very truly understood, and rectified.... yet critics proceed to convey them up. Oh through ways, did you understand the historic egyptian list says no longer some thing about Moses and the Israelites? Edit:It likely would not resemble the early writings you're speaking about, Joseph Smith develop into attentive to the KJV New testomony, after we translate some thing it has a tendency to resemble what we are attentive to, lol. How in the international might want to his translation resemble some thing he's not attentive to! you would possibly want to correctly be lower than the effect that each and every individual note, word, sentence structure, and so on, could easily resemble the unique author's, this would not be a translation... it could be an instantaneous replica. or maybe then that's in simple terms no longer accessible as some languages do not actually have a note for issues in yet another language. as an social gathering:Joseph Smith translated horse, it might want to were a donkey, or another type of driving animal. no longer saying that is authentic, that's in simple terms an social gathering. Edit:Starlight, properly if that's no longer present day in any historic document, then a critic might want to assert (as they say on a ordinary foundation about the e book of Mormon) it in simple terms did not ensue. I truly have a feeling they could easily have suggested it, yet positioned a spin on it diverse than the Bible. taking section in devils recommend right here...

Answer 5

People relate Jacobean English with holy text. Joseph smith wasn't smart enough to realize people really talked like that when the KJV was translated or realized people would believe it more if he used it. Either way if it were a holy text it would not need to use a special text to be valid.

Answer 6

Its only been a few years since they started pubishing the bible in american english.
The mormon elders have not given the permission for the change . if it was good enough for their forefathers its good enough fo them.

Answer 7

Joseph Smith had to have some sort of guide to use

Answer 8

I don't know.