Dave Miller, in an article entitled, “Is the Book
of Mormon from God?” wrote the following:
[T]he KJV
also made grammatical and stylistic errors that were naively copied by the Book
of Mormon. For example, in Hebrew, singular masculine nouns are changed to
plural my appending "im" (pronounced "eem")--the equivalent
of "s" or "es" in English. The Hebrew words
"cherub" and "seraph" are singular nouns. The plural forms
of these words are "cherubim" and "seraphim." The KJV
translators mistakenly added an "s" ("cherubims" and
"seraphims") to these terms to denote a plural form (e.g., Genesis
3:24; Exodus 25:18, 19, 20, 22; Isaiah 6:2, 6; Hebrews 9:6) . . . Yet the
original 1830 Book of Mormon reproduced the same mistake as the KJV in 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 and how
to transfer words from one language to another; the author of the Book of
Mormon obviously did not.
Now, it is true that the Hebrew masculine plural ים is properly transliterated –im, and
not –ims. It is also correct that the 1830 Book of Mormon (as well as
the Original and Printer’s Manuscripts) follow the KJV in this regard when the
OT is being quoted by BOM authors. Furthermore, it is true that the KJV adds an
“s” to the plural of cherub and seraph in those passages (and many more) that
Miller listed. However, notice an important question is begged: why did the KJV
translators who knew Hebrew consistently add an “s” to the plurals for
cherub and seraph? The truth is, the nouns cherub and seraph were part of the
English language when the KJV translators produced the KJV. It is common for a
foreign word, when it is adopted into the English language, to take on English
rules of grammar (in such an instance, the use of an “s” in a plural). The rather
obvious fact (lost on many critics) is that the Book of Mormon purports to be a
translation (and not a transliteration); it stands to reason that the language into which the Book
of Mormon was rendered by Joseph Smith is not that from which, according to its
very own claims, it was translated.
Consider, for instance,
Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Under the entries for both “cherub” and “seraph,” it
presents the plural of these nouns as “cherubs” and “seraphs.”
While not a perfect match to the KJV and the Book of Mormon, it does prove my
point on this particular issue.
One thing is clear to the unbiased reader--the author, as with many critics of the Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, shows only a superficial understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, this is reflected in the majority of "literature", both in print format and online, against the truth-claims of the Church.
