Hi Cold Steel,
"A translation is just taking the meaning of one document and changing it into a language that can be read by those who don't know the original."
Translation is of course exactly that. In the case of the Bible, the OT was written in Hebrew with a few small bits in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. However, translating the Bible is a very involved process, that starts with reconciling all available ancient manuscripts to come up with a refined text. As time has progressed knowledge about the ancient forms of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek have also increased. All of this goes into making a translation. The King James Version of 1611 took years and dozens of scholars to produce. According to a recent National Geographic I read, the KJV translators included an oral reading of their near-finished work so they could judge how the end results sounded.
One of the problems in discussing religious views is intermixing unverifiable claims with statements that are basic facts. For example, if we're religious we may get so use to saying "the word of God" or "when God spoke to Moses" that we forget such statements are not facts, but matters of faith. Yet, if we say, "the Bible is a collection of ancient books written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek." Such is just a basic fact, independent of religious views.
When discussing the Book of Mormon we run into this intermixing problem with the word "translation" itself. The idea the Book of Mormon is a translation of anything, is itself an unverifiable claim. Saying such a thing is nothing more than a statement of faith, of what you may believe is true. But outside the body of believers no one would seriously claim the Book of Mormon is a translation, as if such were a basic fact. The only portion of the Book of Mormon that involves any translation is the sections it borrows from the KJV -- but then the credit for the work of translating these bits goes to the KJV translators, not Joseph Smith.
"Finally, words like "Bible" and "hour" are not anachonisms. A bible is simply a collection of books, scrolls or codices, and an hour is simply a segment of time."
When creating a story set in the past, authors always must be mindful of anachronisms. A character being read their Miranda rights in a 1950s setting is flawed, since it didn't become a law until 1966. The Book of Mormon contains many of these issues. Having more recent words like "Bible" (2 Nephi 29:6) appear in an ancient setting doesn't work. If you read through the Bible you'll never run across the word "hour" (1 Nephi 8:8) to refer to time, until the NT era. But these anachronisms are mild compared to having some in an ancient setting quote Paul's writings in the NT (Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Nephi 10:18) or as already mentioned a portion of the Lord's prayer, that itself, was a later addition to the Bible. This is not a question of what "Bible" or "hour" means, it is a question of when such words came into use along with the concepts they represent.
"If the text said "King James Version of the Bible," that would be one thing. But the prophets knew that a bible."
Yet, you don't see Jesus or other NT writers use the word "Bible", because of course neither the word nor concept existed in their day.
In reality I don't think these issues ever tell a full story in regards to our faith. Charles Russell of the International Bible Students movement and progenitor of Jehovah's Witnesses made a big deal out of the Greek work for "presence" (parousia) at Matthew 24:3. This was key to understanding Jesus had already returned and was invisibly present he claimed. Jehovah's Witnesses to this day make this claim. I was midly shocked when a friend of mine in the faith pointed out Mark 13 and Luke 21 parallel accounts do not even have this all important word. But this didn't cause me to lose faith in the organization. Because my life was so wrapped up in the faith, it would take a much bigger and more personal event to really move me.
Cheers,
-Randy
...OUTLAW