Matthew Paulson, a long-standing critic of the LDS Church, used to have a Website entitled “Weighing Mormonism.” In one paper, he wrote the following against the Book of Mormon:
DID JOSEPH SMITH COPY KING JAMES TRANSLATION ERRORS?
The best confirmation that the Book of Mormon used the KJV Bible is the existence of poor KJV translations copied into the Book of Mormon text. The KJV translators were fallible and they produced a few inadvertent poor transliterations. Suchah and chuppah are two Hebrew words poorly translated by the KJV translators (Isaiah 4:5, 5:25). Former BYU professor Dr. Louis Midgley thought that Dr. Daniel Peterson has answered this problem, "You will notice that he [Paulson] makes a fuss out of the supposed mistranslation of chuppah and suchah in the KJV which also turn up in the Book of Mormon. He [Paulson] is apparently unaware that you [Peterson] dealt with that phony issue in your review of the John Ankerberg and 'Dr.' John Weldon's book in RBBM 5 (1993):1-86 at 50-51." (Letter Midgley to Peterson, 7-11-95). IS this a phony issue? Did Dr. Peterson answer this problem adequately? I think not.
Chuppah = Canopy or Defence
Dr. Peterson waxes his way in this argument, "But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity. I think not." [14] The seriousness of the infraction is not important. It is the existence of the poor translation in the Book of Mormon that is very important! The argument is like this. Since the King James translators made a poor choice in the translation, and this same poor translation exists in the Book of Mormon, ergo, the Book of Mormon writer can only be utilizing the KJV Bible and not gold plates.
Suchah = Refuse or Torn...
Dr. Peterson admits that the King James translators erred at Isaiah 5:25. He confesses, "Secondly, it is true that "refuse" is a better translation of suchah than is "torn." However, one must ask whether the deference is really so great as to justify rejection of the Book of Mormon." [15] (P.51) Thank you Dr. Peterson! This statement makes the argument valid. Dr. Midgley is incorrect in believing that the translation problem has been adequately answered. The Book of Mormon writer is looking at the KJV and not gold plates!
Yet, Dr. Peterson must admit that the translation is poorer, but the reason for the matching KJV text is uncertain. Dr. Peterson attempts to say that the poor translations are not unimportant and then appeals to the work of LDS scholars who have done research on this subject..
Perhaps, for the same reason, there would have been more loss than gain in making alterations, even improvements, to unimportant elements of the text. (The English translation of the Book of Mormon is unafraid to make changes in quoted biblical texts, as the work of scholars as John Tvedtnes and John Welch... makes abundantly clear.) [16]
Of course, Dr. Peterson cannot come to grips with the evidence. His speculation that God used the King James for some unknown good is naive and ludicrous. John Tvedtnes and John Welch do not help vindicate the problems in the quotations. In fact, some LDS scholars admit that there are still many errors in the variants and that they need to be changed back to the KJV text! The next three topics are hard evidence and solid confirmation that the Book of Mormon is a phony book. Anomalies that exist with the Book of Mormon show that the Book of Mormon author is not familiar with manuscript evidence and geography of the Middle East.
Notes for the Above:
14 RBBM 5 (1993): 1, p.50.
15 Ibid.
16 RBBM 5(1993): 1, p. 51.
Source: Matt Paulson, "Straining a Gnat Only To Swallow a Camel A RESPONSE TO MR. D. CHARLES PYLE'S CRITICISM OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC MINISTRIES"
(URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20010420223543/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8280/pyle1.htm)
(URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20010420223543/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8280/pyle1.htm)
Such bravado coupled with gross ignorance is part-and-parcel of Paulson’s methodology; one LDS apologist, D. Charles Pyle, wrote a paper back in the 1990s showing Paulson’s lack of scholarship and exegetical skills (see here). On this particular issue, the only “problem” is Paulson’s lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language.
Paulson makes reference to Daniel C Peterson’s devastating critique of Everything you wanted to know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, which I would recommend one to pursue (available here). While I have great respect for Dan, I do think he should have dealt with this particular issue better; sadly, Paulson stopped at Dan’s comments on this issue without researching this charge against the Book of Mormon in any more depth.
Isa 4:5/2 Nephi 14:5
And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the sharing of flaming fire by night for upon all the glory shall be a defense. (KJV)
Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over its places of assembly a cloud by day and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night. Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy. (NRSV)
The offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a "chamber" (as a covering or enclosing), per BDB, or a "shelter" (per Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). As the word "defense" in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue.
Isa 5:25 (2 Nephi 15:25)
Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. (KJV)
This is why the Lord's anger was roused against his people, why he stretched out his arm against it. And struck it, so that the mountains quaked, and its corpses lay like refuse in the streets. Yet his anger has not turned back, and his arm is outstretched still. (1985 JPS Tanakh)
The Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon, but a demonstration of the critic’s lack of Hebrew skills. Paulson has opted for the former rendering as a number of modern translations have chosen this one. It is clear that he does not know Hebrew--if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means "cut of" or "torn off"; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean "as offal."
Paulson’s posturing notwithstanding, 2 Nephi 14:5 and 15:25 does not replicate KJV errors.
For Further Reading
John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon
Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, eds. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welsh
Kevin L. Barney, Isaiah Interwoven
