On the Accuracy of the Bible and the Book of Mormon

 LDS church strongly believes, through many errors, revisions, and removals; that the Bible is inaccurate and incomplete in various areas. This is why they have the belief of open scriptural cannon, which brings for the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, and modern-day prophets to produce aforementioned scripture. These books of scripture are to provide clarity and lost knowledge on key doctrines, while working alongside the Bible. In a fundamentalist viewpoint, the LDS church uses the King James Version Bible believing this translation is the most correct of them out there in the English language. While the LDS church has quietly conceded to allowing at-home usage of modern translations recently; culturally, it is highly frowned upon, including study Bibles. Since the early beginnings of Joseph Smith's quest for truth, translation is a crucial argument for members carrying on to today.

Searching the LDS church's website, you can find numerous talks, articles, and prominent quotes about the errancy of the Bible. However, none of which go into detail about the supposed claims of the present disagreements and contradictions of the Bible. Neither do they quantify the translation problems of the Bible. What is relied on for proof is the existence of the Joseph Smith translations (JST), which holds various corrections and additions of passages and verses of the KJV Bible that are claimed to be lost or omitted. The problems with the LDS church's staunch belief on the accuracy of the Bible are the implications it has on God's divinity, failure to see the obtuse reasoning in KJV absolutism, and ignorance to just how complete and accurate the Bible really is. 

The begin, we will discuss the divinity of God and His word 1 Peter 1:10-12 :

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which the angels long to look.

Scriptures bear the mark of the Holy Spirit's work. The word of God is the means by which the Spirit communicates God's truth to us—a truth that is timeless and unchanging. Therefore, the enduring, reliable nature of the scriptures is a reflection of the enduring, reliable presence of the Spirit. To say the world corrupted scripture would absurdly imply that the world can trump God's control. Scripture has clearly stated that God is firmly in control of the world and whatever He does endures forever without corruption (Ecclesiastes 3:14-15). The idea that God would allow the word of God to become corrupted in a great apostasy after Christ's death contradicts several key principles. The first key principle is the nature of God Isaiah 40:8 :

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Psalm 119:89 :

Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.

These verses affirm the enduring nature of God's word. A total apostasy of God's truths, especially His ability to communicate and preserve them for us, would suggest failure in God's sovereign plan. This is inconsistent with the biblical portrayal of God's omnipotence and faithfulness.

The second contradicted principle is the power and purpose of Christ's ministry Matthew 16:18 :

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Hebrews 13:8 :

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Christ promised us that His church would withstand all challenges, especially from the gates of hell. A great apostacy and a corruption of the word sharply contradicts the promise and enduring nature of Christ's ministry. Neither has Joseph Smith denied this promise in Matthew 16:18, and there is no JST "correction". The doctrine of a great apostasy cannot coincide with the power and purpose of Christ's ministry.

The third contradicted principle is the role of the Holy Spirit, which we will further expand upon John 14:26 :

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 :

All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Holy Spirit's role of efficacy of action, which includes that of preservation and guidance within the church. Apostacy and corruption of the word would imply that the Holy Spirit failed in this role, which is entirely inconsistent the Spirit's depiction and overall divinity.

The fourth contradicted principle is the spread and preservation of the gospel Matthew 28:19-20 :

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." 

The Great Commission and Christ's promise to always be with them carries the implication of continuous presence and effectiveness of the gospel message, not a disappearance and later restoration. Is God's physical manifestation on earth to shortly be trumped by Satan and the world for nearly 1800 years? This idea appears to be an empowerment of the devil and a diminishing of God's sovereignty. 

These four contradictions are highly problematic to the idea of corruption of scripture. One should wonder if the agenda behind this doctrine is to establish reliance on the institution rather than God's divine reasoning. Repeatedly, scripture is shown to be highly important in God's way of revealing His divine reasoning and the establishment of communication with us John 1:1 :

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

By presenting Jesus as the Word, or "Logos", unites the concept of divine revelation contained in the scriptures. This affirms that in Jesus (the living Word), we see the perfect revelation of God, and in the scriptures (the written word), we have the authoritative account of God's interaction with humanity, His purposes, and His promises. Scripture is also the way we are sanctified with God (John 17:17). To establish this authoritative declaration and purpose of scripture, only to have it later allowed to be corrupted and lost is absurd. 

Next, we will discuss the idea of King James Version absolutism.

King James Version absolutism comes with the belief that this translation is the best and only accurate English version of the Bible ordained by God. Any version updating the Jacobian language is considered to be highly dubious and fallible work of man, not of God. This thinking is rather obtuse and is ignoring the centuries of immense work of people trying to decentralize the word of God prior to the KJV release in 1611. To illustrate, we will start with the evolution of languages the New Testament underwent as the word of God was brought to people not only in different regions of the world, but in different eras of language. Note, this is just a general overview, as there are many more variants within languages and time periods:

1. Koine Greek (1st Century AD): The original New Testament texts, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East during the time of Christ.

2. Old Latin (2nd Century AD): Before the Vulgate, translations were written in versions of Latin known as Old Latin or Vetus Latina.

3. Syriac (2nd Century AD): A dialect of Middle Aramaic, which included the Diatessaron by Tatian and the Peshitta.

4. Coptic (2nd/3rd Century AD): The New Testament was translated in several Coptic dialects used in Egypt.

5. Latin Vulgate (4th Century AD): A version of Latin with some changes to the language, which became the authoritative version in the Western Church for many centuries. Vulgate is the name of the Bible St. Jerome translated and assembled the Bible into.

6. Gothic (4th Century AD): The first Germanic language translation completed by Bishop Ulfilas.

7. Ethiopic (4th/5th Century AD): Translated into Ge'ez, which is an ancient Ethiopian language.

8. Armenian (5th Century AD): Armenian Bible completed in 434 AD.

9. Old Church Slavonic (9th Century AD): Cyril and Methodius translated portions of the Bible for the usage and understanding in the Slavic Orthodox Church.

10. German (Middle Ages): Martin Luther translated the Bible into German in the 16th Century AD; however, there were others before him who translated portions of the Bible into German. Luther's objective was to make the word of God more accessible and understandable for the common people.

11. English Translations Before KJV:

- John Wycliffe's Bible (Late 14th Century): The first complete English translation, done from the Latin Vulgate.

- Tyndale's New Testament (1526 AD): First New Testament printed in English, translated from Greek.

- Coverdale Bible (1535 AD): The first complete Bible printed in English.

- Matthew's Bible (1537 AD): Combined the work of Tyndale and Coverdale.

- The Great Bible (1539 AD): The first authorized version of the Bible in English.

- The Geneva Bible (1560 AD): First English Bible with verse numbers, widely used by Puritans.

- The Bishops' Bible (1568 AD): A revision of the Great Bible.

12. King James Version (1611 AD): Commissioned by King James I of England, the KJV was an English translation made by a group of scholars using available Hebrew and Greek texts. KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible and incorporated insights from earlier translations like Tyndale's.

One would be absurd to observe all the centuries worth of work people went through delivering the word of God into different languages for better understanding and communication to then suddenly draw a line at the KJV Bible saying everything after this is illegitimate. We have thousands of copies, versions, and transcripts all the way up to 2 Century AD for the New Testament, which have been exhaustively analyzed for the purpose of accuracy. Why would God specifically ordain one group of scholars in history, with less transcripts going back only to about 1000 AD, to produce the most accurate word of God and nobody else can afterward when we have better access and technology to further elevate the Bible's accuracy? Would not God want His word to be more readily understandable and accurate for all?

If one is so concerned on the accuracy of the translation of the Bible, they would be better off to skip over the KJV and read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Entire websites, books, and applications are dedicated to showing the original language behind the text of the Bible giving you the proper understanding without having to learn multiple ancient languages. In fact, one would be even better off to read the Bible in one of the prominent modern English translations, so they do not have to constantly stumble in the 400-year-old English dialect, and analyze the original language behind the English text using a variety of these tools.

To illustrate how problematic it is to be using a Bible so outdated in its language, we will look at the talk "Watch, That Ye May Be Ready" by Harold B. Lee, who was an LDS prophet. In this talk, he discusses the importance of living righteously and in harmony with the truth of the gospel, while the church stands out in their extensive activities around the world. To illustrate this idea of living according to divine authority, president Lee quotes (KJV) Romans 1:16-18 :

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. … For therein is the righteousness of God revealed … [and note this particularly] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness."

The scripture passage after the emphasis president Lee put in this segment "and note this particularly" is verse 18. Aligning with the theme of his talk, and general LDS condemnation, Lee interprets verse 18 as those who have possession of the gospel truth in unrighteousness receive the condemnation of God. Our 21st Century eyes, or 20th Century eyes in his case, see the verb "hold" in verse 18 as commonly understood to mean to have possession of. However, the Greek word used by Paul is κατέχοντας (katéchontas), and in context means to suppress or restrain. Compare this to the English Standard Version (ESV), which is the version I use, of Romans 1:18 :

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 

Contextually, the English Standard Version provides a clearer interpretation of the underlying Greek text's intent by linking unrighteousness with the suppression of truth. KJV, however, chose a broad semantic range for interpretation. The problem is this translation is a 400-year-old English dialect making our modern minds see this word and verse structure as possession. President Lee fell victim to this less-than-ideal KJV translation and used it as a threat of condemnation for members who know the truth and still live unrighteous. In reality, the underlying Greek is conveying the suppression of the truth is a widespread human condition, because none are righteous and all righteousness comes from God through faith alone.

This should bring concern to those in the LDS church that their prophet of God, whose main role is to uphold and bring about canonized scripture, failed to properly interpret a passage of scripture—a particular passage that gave inspiration to Martin Luther that sparked the Protestant Movement, nonetheless. One could say he is just a man that makes mistakes, but scripture says differently and hold prophets to a much higher standard. If a true prophet speaks once in God's name giving instruction, when God did not say that, the prophet dies (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Surely, a church focused on Old Covenant retrieval would subject themselves to the same prophetic rules, right? Just as all this sheds light on president Lee's lack of understanding of scripture, along with the LDS church, it illustrates the problem of using a severely outdated version of the Bible. 

The KJV Bible did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls and the various other collections of scripture that have since surfaced after 1611 AD. The libraries we have access to are far more extensive with better ancient commentaries and copies much closer to the original texts. Contemporary English Bible versions are arguably more accurate and transparent than the King James Version. In fact, these versions were brought forth with the intention of bringing better transparency and accuracy of the Bible to better convey the word of God. Reading an ESV Study Bible will illustrate much of this in the extensive footnotes and commentary. If you are still leery of modern work, check the translation yourself with resources that are often free online just as was done with Romans 1:18 in this dissertation. 

Working towards clarification and legibility with the Bible should always be pursued given its importance. In fact, the KJV Bible used today is not the same as the 1611 edition. The 1769 Oxford Standard Edition by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of the King James Bible is the most widely used version today, including the LDS church. Many mistakenly believe it is the original KJV text, but it is the fourth revision of the KJV that updates spelling, letters, punctuation, errors, and textual corrections. 

The idea of the KJV being the end-all-be-all Bible is an idea debased from scripture itself and is more focused on orthodoxy than any real guidance from God. Additionally, this type of thinking questions God's ability to control how His word is communicated to bring souls back to him. If such modern translations are an abomination to God, then why did God allow so many people publish different versions to be broadly used and published? God wants us to understand His divine reasoning in our own language and dialect. Christ illustrates this by quoting the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 22:43-44). The Septuagint was controversial not only because it translated the word of God from Hebrew, which allowed more Hellenistic (Greek) Jews to access scripture, it led to different theological interpretations in its translation. Christ's use of the Septuagint indicates acceptance in usage, and even an endorsement of these new interpretations. Are we to not follow Christ’s example on this?

The next section is on the overall accuracy of the Bible. Most of which is taken from the book Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible by John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry. To simplify the matter, we will focus primarily on the New Testament.

Yes, we do not have the original copies of the letters and texts of the New Testament, which likely succumbed to time and wear after they were copied over and over. To say the Bible has been corrupted by human hands is a dramatic oversimplification. Scribes have made changes that led to textual differences, but scholars for centuries have worked to carefully sort out what went wrong and what to correct.

The idea the Bible has been corrupted beyond recovery requiring additional scripture to reconcile God's word does not match reality. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christianity exploded both geographically and linguistically. Acts 2:5 shows there were Jews present from every nation under heaven at the first Christian sermon. Paul wrote letters to Rome, Greece, and Turkey, and even aspired to go as far as Spain. Unlike the Old Testament, many of these early letters and gospels were quickly translated into a variety of languages, such as Latin, Coptic, and Syriac, and spread all over the Roman Empire to meet demand. Early Christianity had no centralized authority allowing for scribes to translate freely and had a certain liberty to introduce changes. However, this decentralization also meant these changes had less of a chance of corrupting the text irreparably. 

Too many copies, in too many places, and too many languages were these texts quickly distributed preventing one person or group to alter the text for everyone else. This is a critical fact why many New Testament scholars have been optimistic about arriving at the original text. Today, we have access to massive collections of these manuscripts in all these languages, eras, and geographies that no one institution controls. This holds all Christian sects accountable with one unable to slip in changes or omission.

To date, there are over five thousand Greek New Testament manuscripts ranging from 2nd Century AD to the 18th Century AD. Having the New Testament in Greek is important, because it preserves the original word and intent that was written. This sheer volume spread across thousands of libraries and collections across the world is a blessing and illustrates how no one institution controls or owns the word of God. Scholars for centuries have actively poured over these manuscripts to find the most accurate translation combing through any deviations, omissions, and additions. 

The first complete New Testaments appeared in the 4th Century AD called the "pandects". The most important of these are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Both of which were not available until the 19th Century AD with the former of the two not being discovered until that same century. Important manuscripts like these are especially important when considering the differences between the KJV and later English translations. Other early manuscripts written in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Gothic number in the thousands and serve as an important witness to the Greek text. These manuscripts do suffer from scribal errors and require textual criticism. However, the enormous volumes of these versions in various languages means we are not lost or suffering from scribal errors passed on like a game of telephone. One suffers certain errors, while all the rest do not. Putting them all together from all eras and geographies guides scholars in what the original text should be. 

In addition to versions, we have citations from early Christian theologians, apologists, and church leaders. While they do also require textual criticism, these citations are valuable peering into the early versions themselves with quotations and references. Early Christians provide a degree of chronological and geographical pinpointing not possible with all manuscripts. These men also discuss which variants of the Bible are common or uncommon in the manuscripts they knew.

Taking these three witnesses together—Greek manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations—create a strong and confident New Testament. In the words of Ecclesiastes 4:12 :

And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

With only one or two of the elements, we would often doubt the particulars of the text and lose confidence. In God's providence, we have a threefold cord of evidence. Where one fails us, the other two may fill the gaps. 

Are there any major passages or areas in the Bible that currently hold criticism among scholars? Yes, and two such passages hold the most criticism or questions. These are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 believed to be later additions to the original text. 

Mark 16 is believed to have discrepancies because the two earliest copies of Mark do not have the verses 9-20. These are also considered to be some of the most important manuscripts holding much confidence (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Early scholars, such as Eusebius, note that Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 in  nearly all the copies. Some early Coptic and Syriac manuscripts lack the ending as well. Today, many Bibles include the passage but with clear notations that it is not in early manuscripts giving notice to the reader.

Another reason supporting Mark 16:9-20 is not original to the text is the awkward transition of Mary Magdalene being introduced in 16:1 and fleeing from the tomb in 16:8. However, Mary Magdalene is reintroduced in 16:9 as if the reader does not know who she is. 

John 7:53-8:11 is also believed to be a later addition to the original text, which is the woman caught in adultery brought to Jesus. The evidence on this passage, however, is much stronger with almost 270 continuous-text Greek manuscripts out of about 1,500 do not have this passage. This includes our four earliest copies, which also include the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Hundreds of medieval copies do not have it. Most Syriac manuscripts do not have it, and neither do some early Latin copies. Eusebius did not include it either in his canon tables in the fourth century. Just as significant, our first references to the story in the early church place it outside John's Gospel altogether in other noncanonical Gospels we do not have.

The story is beloved, but it was never a secret that it was an addition to the original text being known to writers in the early church, Middle Ages, and the Reformation. The story may have happened, but it is not a part of the word of God. Neither is it even considered Apocryphal. The conclusion is to use the story as an illustration but not determine our theology or practice. 

These two discrepancies are the largest in the Bible; however, they are also unique. No other variants are of this length or intensity, so we should not carry on the impression there are an immense amount of biblical variants hiding away in manuscripts. Most of the important ones are hiding in plain sight in the footnotes of our English Bibles. Even then, most scholars only concern themselves with a tiny fraction of the variants, because most are not really significant and do not change the underlying meaning. 

Only few places in the New Testament do scholars feel the need to actually guess what the true meaning is, like Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. For Acts 16:12, the question is whether Philippi is "a city of the first district of Macedonia" or the "first city of the district of Macedonia". For 2 Peter 3:10, the issue is whether at the final judgement the earth and human works "will not be found," "will be found," or "will be burned up." By negative example, these illustrate how rarely scholars feel the need to guess on the true underlying text. 

If there were controversial changes on core doctrines of the Gospel, you would certainly be hearing it from a variety of other Christian churches showing proof of such an act being done in the enormous collections of manuscripts. Sects of Christianity certainly have issues over interpretations of the word of God, but the validity of scripture translation and originality is not nearly as much of an issue. In fact, outside of the LDS church, there is a general consensus of acceptance between denominations on translation and originality on major versions.

The last section to be covered is Joseph Smith's translations of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Since the foundation of the LDS faith is based on lost doctrine and errors of the Bible requiring additional canon and prophets, we will look at the acclaimed work of God through Joseph Smith that is proudly declared as a restoration. If this is true, LDS scripture and the works of Joseph Smith should be entirely clean and accurate. To say otherwise and that the restoration is still ongoing begs the question of what have the later prophets been doing if canonized scripture has not been cleaned and corrected 180 years later. 

To start, we will circle back to Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Joseph Smith never acknowledged in any of his writings or in the JST notations that either of these two passages were not part of the original scripture. If you are a church based on doctrine that all the denominations are wrong due to incorrect and missing scripture, yes, you should be pedantic on every piece of scripture. To say the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was not complete up to this point is not correct, because Joseph Smith put a correction notation on John 8:11 saying there was a translation error that reads JST John 8:11 :

...sin no more. And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name.

Why would Joseph Smith not put a notation saying this whole passage is not original and not something to consider in theology or practice if he bothered to place a translation correction? Why would he even put a translation correction on a passage not even to be considered Apocryphal?

Even more concerning, why does the ending of Mark, which is widely accepted to be non-original and a later addition, included in the Book of Mormon? KJV Mark 16:17-18 appears nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:24. This defeats the whole Book of Mormon's purpose of cleaning up and clarifying the Bible and be a infallible translation. Why is a later scribal addition to the Bible quoted in the Book of Mormon? 

The next passage in question is Isaiah 10:18, in which the KJV reads :

And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth.

The portion in question is " both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth". In the original Hebrew, the text reads : מִנֶּ֖פֶשׁ וְעַד־בָּשָׂ֑ר תֹּאכֵ֖ל וְהָיָ֥ה כַמָּסָ֖ס נֹסֵֽס

Or transliterated in English : minnephesh ve'ad-basar tokhel vehayah chamassas noses

The segment "minnephesh ve'ad-basar" is the phrase about the soul and body. The second segment "tokhel vehayah chamassas noses" translates roughly to "it shall be consumed and become like something that melts or fades away". This phrase is describing the total destruction or complete wasting away of something, which aligns with the overall theme of Isaiah 10:18 describing devastating judgement. 

The Septuagint (was around during Christ's time) Greek text for this segment of Isaiah 10:18 is : ἀπὸ ψυχῆς καὶ ἕως σαρκός φάγεται καὶ ἔσται ὡς σταγόνα ἀπὸ δένδρου

Transliterated : apo psychēs kai heōs sarkos phagetai kai estai hōs stagona apo dendrou

"apo psychēs kai heōs sarkos" directly corresponds to the Hebrew referring to the soul and the flesh maintaining the idea of completeness in consumption, which is the next word "phagetai". "kai estai hōs stagona apo dendrou" means "as a drop from a tree" in English, which is an interesting element. While not having a direct counterpart to the Masoretic Text, it is adding a simile to describe the manner of consumption implying something withering or drying up, like a drop falling from a tree.

In the KJV text, "and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth" has no direct counterpart to the Masoretic Text either. What the King James party was attempting was to convey metaphorical intensity and imagery that the original Hebrew text implies, but does not carry over well on its own. However, this metaphor chosen falls entirely flat. Both the Hebrew and the Greek convey something being entirely consumed in the broader passage. Making an addition to the text is not the issue, as the Septuagint did so (which is supported by Christ as a whole), since it adds clarity in the language carry over. The problem is the translation in the KJV misses the mark.

Instead of a standard-bearer fainting, the metaphor used by ESV and NASB versions is a sick man wasting away. This contemporary metaphor captures the true imagery of the underlying text and flows. The KJV is a notable departure from the literal rendering influenced by an alternate reading seeing it in a military context, and failing to capture the true direct sense of consumption or destruction. This verse needs to be changed in the KJV Bible.

This illustration not only touches on why a modernization of the KJV is needed, but also asks the question why it was not corrected by Joseph Smith in a JST notation? If the challenge to this question is that the verse may not have been seen as important enough to make this change, then why is it directly quoted in the Book of Mormon in KJV format in 2 Nephi 20:18? The LDS church makes the bold claim it is the most perfect book, so why does the Book of Mormon use a far less ideal metaphor usage for Isaiah 10:18? 

If the next challenge is this dissection of Isaiah 10:18 is too nitpicking, then why does 2 Nephi 16:2 and 16:6, when quoting Isaiah 6, carry the bad KJV translation of "seraphims" when it should be "seraphim"? Seraphim is the plural version of seraph, so it is improper to add a letter s to the end of the word. Why does 2 Nephi 15:2 carry the bad KJV translation of "fenced it" when quoting Isaiah 5:2? The underlying Hebrew in Isaiah 5:2 clearly shows "dug it up". 

Why does Jesus use the Aramaic word "Raca" in 3 Nephi 12:22 as a metaphor for people to understand when no one in the Americas would understand what he is referencing? Why would Jesus reference the Roman law of impressment in 3 Nephi 12:41 when they have no idea who the Romans are? Why does the Book of Mormon use the language form "Jesus Christ" when it is the Attic Greek version of the name (a language they did not know)? Why is the Book of Mormon written like the KJV Bible when none of these ancient languages translate directly into that style of English dialect?

These are just a selection of many examples one can find of the Bible references used in the Book of Mormon and its discrepancies. In fact, this should make one wonder if a 1769 edition of the KJV Bible was just directly copied during the process of bringing about the Book of Mormon. If this is true, the implications here of how the Book of Mormon was truly made should be alarming. Joseph Smith's works in JST and the Book of Mormon have a variety of problems that sharply contradict the whole purpose and foundational doctrine of why the LDS church was formed in the first place.

The reality of the LDS claim of the inaccuracies of the Bible is a direct challenge to God's authority and divinity. We should be asking questions and seeking for truth always, but the LDS church is more interested in seeking an agenda and its own authority rather than God. Delegitimizing the word of God opens up an opportunity to introduce new doctrines that enslaves its members to a heavy yoke. Their allegiance becomes to the institution that casts doubt into the very hearts of people turning them away from hard facts of the accuracy of the Bible and its contemporary versions. The moment the Book of Mormon and other LDS canon is introduced alongside the Bible, principles of the Gospel become confusing and contradictory. If LDS doctrine born out of its new canon was able to stand its ground, the LDS church would not be desperately trying to edit, modify, normalize, and obscure in order to fit in with evangelist Christians that it is attempting today. 

This dissertation focuses primarily on the theological and academic arguments of the accuracy of the Bible and the errancy of Joseph Smith's scriptural works. Looking into the actual story of how the Book of Mormon was brought forth (Joseph using a hat to read from a rock inside that he found digging a well, which the church has the rock posted on its website), how the JST notations look remarkably a lot like Adam Clarke's Bible commentary, and how Egyptian Papyri used for the Book of Abraham stands up to our now extensive knowledge of Egyptian writings; one could see how much deception at a massive scale is being facilitated in the background of this religion. 

Finally, one can also tell how uninspired the Book of Mormon is by comparing it with the Bible. The Bible's depths of edification and wisdom is so profound that nothing compares to it. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is one dimensional. The Book of Mormon is a series of strange odysseys with platitudinal punchlines at the end that fall flat in understanding who God is and our purpose. Any theological principles introduced are usually a direct quote or paraphrase of a biblical passage. To say the Book of Mormon is the word of God and the Bible is wrong, is not only incredibly ignorant, but a grievous sin that only leads you to the reward of death.