{"id":746,"date":"2021-05-21T16:49:20","date_gmt":"2021-05-21T16:49:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/angelobiblestudy.com\/?page_id=746"},"modified":"2021-05-21T16:55:25","modified_gmt":"2021-05-21T16:55:25","slug":"is-the-book-of-mormon-from-god","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/angelobiblestudy.com\/?page_id=746","title":{"rendered":"Is the Book of Mormon from God?"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Is The Book of Mormon from God<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

How may a person distinguish between truth and error? Can a person\u00a0know<\/b>\u00a0which religion is right? Must a person rely on\u00a0subjective<\/b>\u00a0inner inclinations and feelings? Or is religious truth ascertainable and knowable based on\u00a0objective<\/b>\u00a0assessment? Most religions (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) base their credibility on some mystical or transcendental experience. Even some \u201cChristian\u201d groups (e.g., Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, et al.) claim that their credibility and authenticity may be established on the basis of the Holy Spirit Whom, they say, gives them their assurance. But when the Bible is examined, no such role is assigned to the Holy Spirit. Mystical religions have always existed, and have insisted that they were the recipients of leading and guidance from superior forces that are \u201cbetter felt than told.\u201d The God of the Bible, on the other hand, always offered evidence\u2014proof<\/b>\u2014of the divine origin of the message before He expected people to believe (e.g., John 10:37-38; 20:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Deuteronomy 18:21-22).<\/p>

The nature of truth is such that it does not depend upon subjective human experience for its veracity. Rather, God created human beings with minds that were designed to function\u00a0rationally<\/b>. We humans have the capability, if we maintain an honest heart free from bias, to consider and weigh evidence, and to draw correct conclusions. As Jesus said, \u201cYou shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free\u201d (John 8:32). The truthfulness of religious claims is\u00a0verifiable<\/b>\u00a0on the basis of evidence and rational thought. Humans can reason logically, and distinguish between truth and falsehood.<\/p>

NO ABSURDITIES OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS?<\/b><\/h2>

The nature of truth is such that it does not contradict itself. After literally centuries of scrutiny by hostile skeptics and unbelieving critics, the Bible has been found to be completely consistent with the nature of truth, logic, and the laws of thought. On the other hand, uninspired documents cannot stand up to such scrutiny. The\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0is one such document.\u00a0It lacks the marks of inspiration that characterize the Bible<\/b>. In an official publication of the LDS (Latter-day Saints), 31 conditions are identified as necessary in order to produce an inspired book. Condition #9 says, \u201cYou must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements\u201d (see \u201cThe Challenge…,\u201d 1990, p. 1). This affirmation is a self-evident truth. Yet, the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0is guilty of violating this very criterion.<\/p>

In the first place, much of the King James Version of the Bible has been reproduced\u00a0verbatim<\/b>\u00a0in the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u2014at least 25,000 words. For example, Mosiah 14 is a reproduction of Isaiah 53. 3 Nephi 13:1-23 is simply Matthew 6:1-23. Moroni 7:45 is copied from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. Moroni 7:48 is 1 John 3:2. Moroni 10:8-17 is taken from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Alma 5:52 is Matthew 3:10. 2 Nephi 14:1-3 is Isaiah 4:1-3. The author of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0obviously had before him a copy of the King James Bible, and simply copied many sections directly from it. But this is only half of the problem on this point. The KJV is an\u00a0uninspired<\/b>\u00a0translation<\/b>\u00a0of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the English language of the turn of the seventeenth century, completed in 1611. But God gave the Old Testament to the Israelites in\u00a0their<\/b>\u00a0native language (Hebrew), and He gave the New Testament in the first century in the\u00a0common language<\/b>\u00a0of\u00a0that<\/b>\u00a0day (Greek).Question: why in the world would God give His Word to Joseph Smith in\u00a0nineteenth-century America<\/b>\u00a0(1830), not in\u00a0American<\/b>\u00a0English, but in\u00a0the British language of seventeenth century England<\/b>? The obvious answer to the question is that\u00a0God would not do so<\/b>. This absurdity is inconsistent with the nature of God.<\/p>

The reproduction of so much of the\u00a0KJV\u00a0in the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0raises four additional concerns. First, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention similar to Islam\u2019s defense of the Quran). But if the Bible has been so adversely affected, why does the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0quote so much of the King James Version? Apparently, at least\u00a0those portions of the Bible<\/b>\u00a0are to be considered accurate!<\/p>

Second, all textual critics (those who study the original manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament) know that\u00a0textual variants<\/b>\u00a0exist in the extant manuscript evidence. The vast majority of these discordant readings are resolved when all of the textual evidence is considered (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 185). If the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0were inspired, not only would it refrain from incorporating the King James Version within its pages, it also would not include in those sections\u00a0the manuscript errors<\/b>\u00a0that have crept into the text. Here was the perfect opportunity in 1830 for God to correct the mistakes that had accumulated during the previous 200 years (as well as the 1,500 years prior to the\u00a0KJV). Instead,\u00a0the mistakes were perpetuated<\/b>!<\/p>

For example, several textual variants occur in Matthew 6\u2014a chapter that was reproduced in 3 Nephi 13. In Matthew 6:4, the Textus Receptus (the Greek text upon which the\u00a0KJV\u00a0was based) contained the words \u201chimself\u201d and \u201copenly.\u201d These insertions were perpetuated by the author of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0in 3 Nephi 13:4, as was the word \u201copenly\u201d in verses 8 and 16 of Matthew 6 (and 3 Nephi 13). Likewise, the Trinitarian ascription in 3 Nephi 13:13 and Matthew 6:13 in the\u00a0KJV\u00a0(\u201cFor thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen\u201d) is not supported by the earliest and most important manuscript witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Subsequent translations, including the\u00a0ASV, omit the sentence altogether, or, in the case of the\u00a0NASB,\u00a0place it in brackets. The manuscript evidence simply does not support these additions as being in the original, inspired autograph authored by Matthew. Many additional instances of the same type of faux pas can be cited. The one who was responsible for producing the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0in these cases unquestionably (1) relied on the\u00a0KJV\u00a0and (2) demonstrated his ignorance of textual criticism.<\/p>

Third, in addition to errors that are due to textual variants, the\u00a0KJV\u00a0also made\u00a0grammatical and stylistic<\/b>\u00a0errors that were naively copied by the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>. For example, in Hebrew, singular masculine nouns are changed to plural by appending \u201cim<\/i>\u201d (pronounced \u201ceem\u201d)\u2014the equivalent of \u201cs\u201d or \u201ces\u201d in English. The Hebrew words \u201ccherub\u201d and \u201cseraph\u201d are singular nouns. The plural forms of these words are \u201ccherubim\u201d and \u201cseraphim.\u201d The\u00a0KJVtranslators mistakenly added an \u201cs\u201d to these terms to denote a plural form (e.g., Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18,19,20,22; Isaiah 6:2,6; Hebrews 9:5). Alluding to\u00a0cherubim<\/i>, Clarke explained: \u201c[T]o add an\u00a0s<\/i>\u00a0to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written\u00a0cherubim<\/i>, not\u00a0cherubim<\/i>s\u201d (n.d., 1:56, italics in orig.; cf. Lewis, 1991, p. 59). Yet the original 1830\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0reproduced the same mistake as the\u00a0KJV\u00a0in this regard (Alma 12:21; 42:2,3; 2 Nephi 16:2,6), though corrections were made in later editions. The unbiased observer is forced to conclude: God knows Hebrew; the author of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0obviously did not.<\/p>

Another sample of stylistic error is the use of the expression \u201cit came to pass.\u201d This expression is a\u00a0Semitism<\/b>, or Hebraism, i.e., an idiomatic oddity or peculiarity of the Hebrew language that has no corresponding equivalent in English. Newer translations either drop it completely or render it with an approximate English equivalent like \u201cit came about\u201d or \u201cit happened.\u201d The KJV simply transferred the Semitism directly into English and, under its influence, has caused the expression to be naturalized into English religious usage. Nevertheless, it is not an idiom that is native to English. The\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0is literally inundated with the expression\u2014as if the author was deliberately attempting to make his writing\u00a0sound<\/b>\u00a0biblically or divinely authentic. In reality, he was unwittingly making it sound Semitic in seventeenth-century English! But God would not have communicated with Americans in 1830 through the convoluted pathway of Hebrew, to seventeenth-century British English, to nineteenth-century American English. Likewise, the peoples of the specific historical periods that the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0claims to be depicting (e.g., the Nephites) would have had no earthly reason to have spoken in Hebrew themselves, nor to have their history reported in Hebrew phraseology and Semitic idiom. Apparently, later Mormon authorities, unable to completely eradicate this stylistic feature due to its extensive occurrence, were nevertheless so uncomfortable with the overuse of the phrase that they have deleted some of its occurrences when so many were used in close proximity with each other. For example, in Alma 14:7, the original\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0had three occurrences of \u201cit came to pass\u201d\u2014in the same verse! Current editions have only one.<\/p>

Fourth, in 3 Nephi 20:23-26, Jesus is represented as the speaker, and He applies to Himself the prophecy that Moses made in Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19. Yet, the author of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0unquestionably was relying on Acts 3:22-26, where\u00a0Peter<\/b>\u00a0paraphrased the Deuteronomy passage, and then added\u00a0his own comments<\/b>. The\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>mistakenly<\/b>\u00a0has Jesus including Peter\u2019s appended comments\u00a0as if they were part of Moses\u2019 words<\/b>\u00a0in Deuteronomy.<\/p>

In addition to the absurdities and contradictions that exist within the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0in its close reliance on the\u00a0KJV, contradictions also exist within and between the Mormon scriptures themselves. Consider, for example, the serious contradiction in the promulgation of polygamy. The\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0condemns the practice of plural marriages in no uncertain terms:<\/p>

But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was\u00a0abominable<\/b>\u00a0before me, saith the Lord…. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have\u00a0save it be one wife<\/b>; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts (Jacob 2:23-24,26-28; cf., 1:15; Ether 10:5;\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a049:16).<\/p><\/blockquote>

These referenced verses from the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0enjoin\u00a0monogamy<\/b>\u00a0with uncompromising vigor. Yet the\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0flatly contradicts the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0on this point:<\/p>

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord,\u00a0justified<\/b>\u00a0my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines\u2014Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an\u00a0everlasting<\/b>\u00a0covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory…. David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants,\u00a0from the beginning of creation until this time<\/b>; and\u00a0in nothing did they sin<\/b>\u00a0save in those things which they received not of me. David\u2019s wives and concubines were given unto him\u00a0of me<\/b>, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and\u00a0in none of these things did he sin<\/b>\u00a0against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (132:1-4,38-39, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Two serious contradictions are evident. First, the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0clearly condemned plural marriage as one of the \u201cgrosser crimes\u201d and \u201cwhoredom\u201d\u2014at least among the Nephites. It specifically singled out the plural marriages of\u00a0David and Solomon<\/b>, denouncing them as an \u201cabomination.\u201d Yet\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0insisted that David and Solomon were completely\u00a0justified<\/b>, and\u00a0committed no sin<\/b>\u00a0in having multiple wives and concubines. If the author of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0(allegedly Joseph Smith) had worded it differently, saying that God enjoined plural marriages at one point in history, but chose not to enjoin the practice at another point in history, or if he had said plural marriages were to be practiced by some people early in history but not by others later in history, then no contradiction would exist. For example, God enjoined animal sacrifice in the Old Testament, and then forbade its use in the New Testament.\u00a0But this is not what Joseph Smith did<\/b>! He\u00a0specifically<\/b>\u00a0identified the polygamy of\u00a0David and Solomon<\/b>, and then made the mistake of both approving\u00a0and\u00a0<\/b>condemning it! This constitutes a flat contradiction. Two statements are\u00a0contradictory<\/b>\u00a0when they\u00a0cannot both be true<\/b>\u00a0(cf. McGarvey, 1974, 3:31). [NOTE: Yet another indication of Joseph Smith\u2019s uninspired status was his allusion in the above quotation (Jacob 2:27) to a man being permitted only one wife, but \u201cconcubines he shall have none<\/b>.\u201d This reference betrays an ignorance of the use of biblical terminology. A \u201cconcubine\u201d in antiquity was a\u00a0wife<\/b>\u2014not a\u00a0mistress<\/b>\u00a0(unmarried sexual partner)\u2014despite popular misconception (cf. Victor P. Hamilton\u2019s article, \u201cpilegesh<\/i>,\u201d 1980, 2:724)].<\/p>

Second,\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0stated that the practice of plural marriage in this life is an\u00a0everlasting\u00a0<\/b>covenant. The term \u201ceternal\u201d or \u201ceverlasting\u201d as used in the Bible can sometimes be abbreviated to refer to a period of time of limited duration (e.g., Jonah 2:6). However, when additional terminology is employed that reinforces the primary meaning of \u201cforever,\u201d an abbreviated period is excluded. Terminology used in the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0shows that \u201ceverlasting,\u201d as applied to the covenant of plural marriage, was intended in its ordinary meaning of\u00a0forever<\/b>. Its application included one\u2019s\u00a0entire earthly<\/b>\u00a0sojourn, since the text says Solomon, Moses, and many others had practiced it \u201cfrom the beginning of creation until this time<\/b>.\u201d Other references confirm this understanding: \u201cboth as well for time and for all eternity\u201d (D&C<\/i>\u00a0132:7); \u201cin the world\u201d (D&C<\/i>\u00a0132:15); \u201con the earth\u201d (D&C<\/i>\u00a0132:46,48). Even Joseph Smith\u2019s wife, Emma, was commanded to accept the additional wives given by God to her husband (D&C<\/i>\u00a0132:52). Section 132 of\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0claims to have been revealed to Joseph Smith in 1843. Yet 47 years later, on September 24, 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued an official declaration on the matter:<\/p>

We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice…. There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy…. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land\u201d (\u201cOfficial Declaration\u2014<\/i>1\u201d in\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>, 1981, pp. 291-292).<\/p><\/blockquote>

In excerpts from three addresses that he delivered regarding this manifesto, Woodruff explained that if they continued to practice plural marriage, temples would be confiscated by the civil authorities, and the First Presidency and Twelve, and family heads, would be imprisoned. If, on the other hand, they ceased the practice, in order to abide by the law of the land, they would be able to continue the duties and ordinances of the church (including baptism for the dead).\u00a0Question<\/b>: Why would God refer to plural marriage as a\u00a0perpetual practice<\/b>\u00a0that would bring damnation upon those who fail to practice it, and then call for Latter-day Saints to\u00a0refrain<\/b>\u00a0from such marriages? God is timeless, and would have known ahead of time that the American government would reach a point at which it would call the Mormon practice of plural marriage to account. Therefore, He would not have enjoined the requirement as \u201ceverlasting\u201d if He later intended to cease the practice. Nor would God have withdrawn one of His \u201ceverlasting commandments\u201d simply because the law of the land by a pagan government made the commandment illegal and implemented persecution!\u00a0When in all of human history has God ever bowed to civil government in its opposition to His will?<\/b><\/p>

NO CHANGES?<\/b><\/h2>

Another legitimate affirmation listed in \u201cThe Challenge\u201d is condition #10: \u201cWhen you finish in 60 days, you must\u00a0make no changes in the text<\/b>. The first edition must stand forever\u201d (p. 1, emp. added). \u201cHouston, we have a problem.\u201d Informed students of the Bible are well aware that no original autographs of the Bible are extant. We are completely dependent upon copies of copies of copies. Not so with the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>.\u00a0The original 1830 first printed edition of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0exists!\u00a0<\/b>In the words of Latter-day Saints President Wilford C. Wood in 1958: \u201cI do testify that the uncut sheets of the complete First Edition of the Book of Mormon have been reproduced in its original unchanged condition; that this is a correct and perfect restoration of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and printed in Palmyra, New York in 1830\u201d (prefatory material). Latter-day Saint authorities have repeatedly affirmed that the original\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0contained no errors<\/b>. In 1883, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, George Reynolds, stated: \u201cIt was done by divine aid\u201d (p. 71). Reynolds refers to the eyewitness account of Martin Harris\u2014one of the scribes who participated with Joseph Smith in the translation of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0(p. 91). Joseph Smith claimed to have found gold plates that he translated into English using an instrument known as the \u201cUrim and Thummim\u201d\u2014two white stones fastened together by a casing of silver, comparable to spectacles. Smith would hold the stones between himself and the gold plates. In 1881, the sixth president of the Mormon Church, Joseph F. Smith, explained the translation process (as reported by Oliver Huntington):<\/p>

The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence or word would disappear as usual (n.d., p. 168).<\/p><\/blockquote>

This procedure, that guaranteed complete accuracy of transcription, was further verified by David Whitmer. Whitmer, who continues to be listed in currently circulating copies of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/em>\u00a0as one of the trio that constitute \u201cThe Testimony of the Three Witnesses,\u201d described the process of translation in the following words:<\/p>

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and\u00a0when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear<\/strong>, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man (Whitmer, 1887, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

In view of the specific procedures by which the gold plates were translated, the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0ought to be perfect<\/b>. Yet, when one compares the original\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0with a currently circulating edition, one observes that\u00a0many changes have been made<\/b>\u00a0in the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0since the original 1830 edition. This circumstance is completely unlike manmade translations of the Bible. All translators of the Bible are\u00a0uninspired<\/b>\u00a0in their translating efforts. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, claimed to have been\u00a0supernaturally guided<\/b>\u00a0in the process of translating the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>, and preserved from making any errors. One official explanation as to why the original 1830 edition of the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0was filled with grammatical mistakes and content blunders is\u2014\u201cprinter\u2019s errors.\u201d This claim, of course, contradicts the above claim of President Wilford, who vouched for the authenticity of the existing 1830 edition and even included in his reproduction of it a \u201cmemorandum\u201d by one of the original printer\u2019s associates\u2014John Gilbert. The memorandum recounts the care given to insuring accuracy in the printing of the manuscript that was brought to the printer by Hyrum Smith (Joseph\u2019s brother), who, along with Martin Harris, supervised the project. Hence, the claim that \u201cprinter\u2019s errors\u201d are responsible for the errors in the original 1830 edition would be a suitable explanation if it fit the facts, but it simply cannot account for the types of mistakes contained in the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u2014the types of mistakes printers do not make<\/b>.<\/p>

Consider a few of the estimated 4,000+ grammatical mistakes that have been corrected in subsequent editions. The original 1830\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0in Jacob 7:24 read, \u201cbut it all were vain.\u201d Alma 48:25 read, \u201cfor the promise of the Lord were\u2026\u201d Alma 53:5 read, \u201cit were easy to guard them.\u201d 1 Nephi 5:11 read, \u201cAdam and Eve, which was our first parents.\u201d All of these errors have been corrected in more recent editions.<\/p>

Consider also a few of the many changes that have been made that correct\u00a0content<\/b>mistakes. In Mosiah 21:28, \u201cBenjamin\u201d has been changed to \u201cMosiah\u201d (since king Benjamin was already dead at this point in the narrative\u2014Mosiah 6:4-5). In Alma 37:21, \u201cdirectors\u201d has been changed to \u201cinterpreters.\u201d In 1 Nephi 13:32, \u201cwoundedness\u201d has been changed to \u201cstate of blindness.\u201d In Mosiah 27:29, \u201cwrecked\u201d has been changed to \u201cracked.\u201d In Alma 13:20 and 41:1, \u201carrest\u201d has been changed to \u201cwrest.\u201d In Alma 17:13, \u201carriven\u201d has been changed to \u201carrived.\u201d The original 1830 title page listed Joseph Smith as \u201cAuthor and Proprietor.\u201d Now he is simply \u201ctranslator.\u201d In 1 Nephi 20:1, the phrase \u201cor out of the waters of baptism\u201d has been inserted. It was not in the original 1830 edition.<\/p>

Printers occasionally transpose letters or garble a word or insert the same line twice or omit a word or two, perhaps a line here and there. But the above changes are not the kinds of errors that printers make.<\/p>

An honest and humble appraisal of these discrepancies should create great concern in the heart of one who believes Mormon documents to be inspired. Many criticisms have been leveled against the Bible over the centuries, yet have been answered decisively. If the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0were from God, it, too, could be defended and its divine authenticity substantiated. However, the lack of adequate explanations to clarify such problems compel the honest individual to conclude that the\u00a0Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0and the\u00a0Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0are not from God.<\/p>

REFERENCES<\/b><\/h2>

Book of Mormon<\/i>\u00a0(1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).<\/p>

The Challenge the Book of Mormon Makes to the World<\/em>\u00a0(1990), (Euless, TX: Texas Fort Worth Mission).<\/p>

Clarke, Adam (no date),\u00a0Clarke\u2019s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy<\/i>\u00a0(New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).<\/p>

Doctrine and Covenants<\/i>\u00a0(1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).<\/p>

Hamilton, Victor P. (1980), \u201cpilegesh<\/i>,\u201d\u00a0Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament<\/i>, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).<\/p>

Huntington, Oliver B. (no date),\u00a0Oliver Boardman Huntington Journals, 1842-1900<\/i>\u00a0(Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Historical Society).<\/p>

Lewis, Jack P. (1991),\u00a0The English Bible From KJV to NIV<\/i>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), second edition.<\/p>

McGarvey, J. W. (1974 reprint),\u00a0Evidences of Christianity<\/i>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company).<\/p>

Metzger, Bruce M. (1968),\u00a0The Text of the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0(New York, NY: Oxford University Press).<\/p>

Reynolds, George (1883),\u00a0The Myth of the \u201cManuscript Found<\/i>,\u201d (Salt Lake City, UT: Juvenile Instructor Office).<\/p>

Whitmer, David (1887),\u00a0An Address to All Believers in Christ<\/em>, [On-line],\u00a0URL: http:\/\/www.irr.org\/mit\/address1.html.<\/p>

Wood, Wilford C. (1958),\u00a0Joseph Smith Begins His Work<\/i>\u00a0(Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News Press).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Is The Book of Mormon from God by Dave Miller, Ph.D. How may a person distinguish between truth and error? Can a person\u00a0know\u00a0which religion is right? Must a person rely on\u00a0subjective\u00a0inner inclinations and feelings? Or is religious truth ascertainable and knowable based on\u00a0objective\u00a0assessment? Most religions (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) base their credibility on some mystical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-746","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","wpbf-post"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t