Kinda like NIV and all the other permutations. I tend to stick with KJV and call it done.
The only reason the NIV exists is because it is a translation into more modern English with slightly different source manuscripts.
And ANYONE has access to the manuscripts used by the NIV, NASB or KJV or NKJV versions of our Bibles.
On the other hand ... who has the source material for the Book of Mormon so that we can check the translation?
You or I can learn Koine Greek (I am actually learning it now) and read the entire New Testament in Greek.
It's different.
With Bible versions, translators review the original Hebrew & Greek...and come to slightly different conclusions on secondary issues...
With the Book of Mormon Lds have an English "translation" already, they don't have the original gold plates. (So there's no need to make a new "translation")
And D&C wasn't written in anything other than English. (Why would they need to "re-translate" English into English??? Same question for Smith's re-editing of the KJ Bible...Smith didn't know Hebrew or Greek...how could he "translate" anything new & add new original text that never existed in the Bible?)
Ping
I tend to stick with KJV and call it done.
let’s see...that version came along about 1’500 years after the original....bad choice, totally incomplete
Why would there be a discussion about Bible translations on a thread about the Book of Mormon?
The only logical reasons I can think of are: 1. To sidetrack the discussion. 2. To inject the idea that the Bible contains errors, and thus deflect any critisism of the Book of Mormon's translation errors/revisions. Either way, it would seem the person more concerned about defending the Book of Mormon (by creating doubt about the Bible) than actually having a serious discussion about the Book of Mormon.