TWIGGY - "the Sun [or Son?] of righteousness" (Malachi 4:2 vs. 3 Nephi 25:2)
The 25th chapter of 3 Nephi is identical to the King James translation of Malachi 4, with two modifications, one very minor, and one that betrays the English origin of the Book of Mormon. Where Malachi says "...ye shall...grow up as calves of the stall" Nephi says "...ye shall... grow up as calves in the stall." That is insignificant.
But the other change is where Malachi says "the Sun of righteousness [shall arise]"; Nephi has "the Son of righteousness." Although the two words 'sun' and 'son' sound identical in English, Malachi was writing in Hebrew, and the Hebrew words for 'sun' and 'son' are quite dissimilar. Only in English could such a confusion occur. Since the error makes a considerable difference in the meaning, one must ask why God did not correct the error when the scribe was writing the Prophet's dictation of this passage? (The JST translation has "Sun".)
It is interesting to note that an article published in 1822 in Canandaigua, New York, (a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived) makes the same mistake in discussing Malachi 4:2, quoting it as "Son of Righteousness" (cited in David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (second edition) p. 131).
Please note the following:
If God is in fact involved in providing translations through his chosen servants, and if God has specifically called such servants to be "translators", one can assume that God has a purpose in doing so, and that the purpose must obviously be to furnish mankind with important messages. It cannot serve God's purposes if those translators are in fact unable to provide accurate translations of the sacred material. Surely, if God is at work here, the translations will be accurate and reliable. Man's frailty or inabilities cannot be a frustration to the work of an omnipotent God, one would think. And D&C 3:3 reiterates that idea:
"Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;..."
One should be able to assume, then, that God is a master of all the world's languages, and that if we find mistranslations or ignorance of the meanings of words, or inability to express an idea accurately, we are not dealing with a message from God, but a message from someone who merely claims to be speaking for God.
Mormons will probably cite as an excuse for such errors the passage in the Book of Mormon (BoM), which says (Mormon 8:17) "And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man....". They do not seem to realize that such an admission implies that any faults mean that -at least at that point - God did not inspire the man.
Mormon apologists who try to deal with the many translation problems often try to excuse and explain the problems by showing how translating is an inaccurate art, how difficult it is, how translators are hampered by the inexact correspondence of one language with another. All of which is very true, if one is looking at a translation done by a translator who was working with no divine assistance. But none of those excuses can apply to Joseph Smith, who, although he was called the "translator," was merely supposed to be acting as God' secretary. Accounts of the "translation" process, which produced the Book of Mormon, describe how the divine power would not let him proceed past a phrase until God considered it right (i.e. there would be no need for any corrections).

JOEL - The Hebrew of Mal. 4:2 uses "shemesh" meaning "sun," and not "ben" which is the word for "son". The Hebrew text says and should be translated as "the sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in her(not his) wings," the feminine pronoun agreeing with the feminine gender of "shemesh". Therefore the correct Hebrew to English translation should be "Sun of righteousness".
But whether it's "the Sun of righteousness" or "the Son of righteousness", Bible scholars agree that the scripture is speaking about Jesus Christ, so either word could be correctly used.
As Joseph Smith was speaking the words of the book to his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, upon hearing the word "sun", which "son/sun" do you think Oliver would have most likely written down, knowing that the passage was talking about Jesus Christ(the Son of God)? It was a simple transcribing mistake which had no effect on the meaning of the scripture, so it was left as "Son". It is also possible that the person who set the type for printing book read the handwritten word as "son" instead of "sun".
Whatever the case, I don't see why God would nitpik over a few incorrectly translated words if they did not change the meaning of the verse. Joseph Smith decided to use the correct word(Sun) in his Inspired version of the Bible.

You said:
"But none of those excuses can apply to Joseph Smith, who, although he was called the "translator," was merely supposed to be acting as God's secretary. Accounts of the "translation" process, which produced the Book of Mormon, describe how the divine power would not let him proceed past a phrase until God considered it right."

This is your opinion based on accounts of the translation process that cannot be historically confirmed or denied. We don't know exactly how it was done. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (History of the Church 1:220).
So any descriptions of the exact process may have only been opinions of those involved.

Joseph Smith once said:
"I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (History of the Church, volume 5, page 265.). So there may have been moments where Joseph lacked the required degree of spiritual readiness to act as a prophet and translate everything perfectly. But even though some discrepancies and errors do exist, we have faith that God was careful to be sure that they were not serious enough to result in the missunderstanding of esential gospel concepts and doctrine.

You said:
"Surely, if God is at work here, the translations will be accurate and reliable. Man's frailty or inabilities cannot be a frustration to the work of an omnipotent God, one would think."

If this is true and assuming you believe in the Bible, how do you explain the following:
God frees the Israelites from bondage and gives to them His new laws(ten Commandments), expecting them to live those laws and thrive as His chosen people. But they rebel and fall into sin, forcing God to make them wander in the wilderness until the unrighteous generation has all died out.
This is a classic case where man's frailty frustrated God's work, if only temporarily. It doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent. It means that God allows man his agency to do what is right or wrong. He doesn't force anyone to be perfect or to do something perfectly, including Joseph Smith. But He also doesn't allow man's frailties to completely hinder His overall plan of salvation for us.
The small mistakes contained within the Book of Mormon do not really frustrate God's main plan. They only provide weak ammunition for our critics and opportunities for us to exercise our faith against opposition.
Oh, and don't call me Shirley. Oh, there you see, now I'm getting words mixed up too :-)

Return to top

Return to Questions
HOME