[sevenbak]

Um, no. The King James Version is not a poor translation of the bible. Most of the world uses it, and it's more 'unaltered' than modern attempts.

But you bring up a good point... Why do you lash out at Joseph Smith for saying “as far as it is translated correctly” when you are doing the same thing, even calling it a poor translation?

That seems quite odd.

[MHGinTN]

Odd? I look at the Hebrew and Greek to offer you a bit of help, yet your peepstone prophet used only his divination rock to rewrite the King James Bible, into King James English which was already an outdated version of English, and he came up with farsical garbage out of his imagination. But you choose to try that smear again regarding the Bible. Quite revealing. Would like for me to post a few more of your adulterous sexual devaiate Smith's additions to the King James Bible?

BTW, didn't you claim to understand Hebrew and Greek several months ago, yet you try to pretend you do not comprehend the reference to 'better'. You do know what 'transliterate Hebrew is, don't you? I didn't lose you at that early juncture, did I?

[MHGinTN]

Does this help?...

Modern Hebrew
מזמור לאסף אלהים נצב בעדת־אל בקרב אלהים ישפט׃

[Elsie]

Why do you lash out at Joseph Smith for saying “as far as it is translated correctly” when you are doing the same thing, even calling it a poor translation?

This is probably due to the fact that the 'english' used is very old fashioned: Wist Thou not?

When the LDS scriputers are tranlated into non-English languages; you do NOT use what was in vogue 400 years ago, but in TODAY's vernacular.