Thanks, but I've read it already. :) Maybe I'm asking a non-question, or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking is if Joseph Smith used the more regularly used English words for things like "Jew" and "Christ" which wouldn't have been the literal translations of the text, why use the literal translation of the text to describe New World animals (e.g. bison) instead of using the normal English word? If he was translating under divine inspiration, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not the word literally meant "ox" or "bison" as one would think God, or the angel Moroni, or whoever was helping him out would prompt him to translate it as "bison" if it was used to refer to a bison, or "ox" if it was used to refer to an ox. Does that make sense? Why be non-literal with some words or phrases, but use confusing literal translations for others?