In this article, the author states:
"Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power."
Do you agree with that statement? If so, what is your response to the many anachronisms contained within the Book of Mormon which can only be explained (assuming Mormonism is correct, of course) on the assumption that Joseph Smith (or in some cases, the original authors) used words more familiar to him (/them). For example: I am reading 2 Nephi which uses the word "Jew." As far as I am aware, this word came into use no earlier than the second century B.C. and is therefore an anachronism. If Joseph Smith replaced words and used phrasing not actually present in the original text, but slightly altered to closer match familiar phrasing in the KJV, can the Book of Mormon truly be called more correct than the Bible?
I may be misunderstanding the LDS beliefs regarding the correctness of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, but if not, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think this would compromise your beliefs in any way, of course, but I'm just curious to know how you think the Book of Mormon compares in correctness to a translation like the New American Bible (NAB) which used the oldest texts available for translation, and retained the closest possible wording to the original manuscripts.
Sorry about the weird highlighting. I copied the quote and messed the whole thing up.