I don’t see why not. I’m not convinced Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon is 100% perfect, and I’m not sure any translation can be, because language itself is not perfect at communicating ideas, and the matter is further complicated when there aren’t words in one language to accurately communicate a word in another. But the point is that the Book of Mormon is a superior translation to that of the Bible, because it was from the original source material, went through fewer hands, and God was directly involved in it, whereas with the Bible we have no translations directly from source material, it has passed through who knows how many hands, and the translators were not prophets of God.

If a book is translated from one language to another wouldn’t that mean a book is translated one too many times?

No, but with every translation the accuracy is challenged. But a slightly imperfect translation is better than no translation at all.

If a book is reprinted in its original language over a period of 100 years does that mean the book is translated too many times?

I’m not sure what this question means, since a reprinting is quite different than a translation.

I’ve spoken too several people in many different religions, yet none have been able to show where the errors are in the Bible. Do you know of the specific errors?

I don’t know if it’s so much about errors or internal inconsistencies as it is things that are missing or things that have been changed. Go grab a copy of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible and compare it to a standard version of the Bible you’ll see the parts we believe are missing and how things have been changed such that the meaning of the scriptures was changed from their original intent.

Wouldn’t going back to the writings in a book’s original language help clarify things?

Generally yes, for those blessed to understand that language.

How can the Bible be used as a witness of the Book of Mormon when the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of aborigine Americans?

The doctrines and historical facts in each book corroborate each other, although of course that depends on your interpretation.

Good point on the BOM being the cornerstone of the LDS relgion. I have heard missionaries say the same thing about Joseph Smith.

I never said the BOM was the cornerstone, but the keystone, although I think it’s kind of ridiculous to argue that a religion is or isn’t true based on the analogies used to describe it’s religious texts…but I’ll do it anyway. A keystone is the middle/top stone in an arch. An arch is formed with many stones, but it is the keystone that holds everything in place. Remove it, and the arch falls apart. The cornerstone is part of the foundation of a building. The point of the arch analogy is that based on the modern-day situation, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because we’re the only church that has it, and we claim that the veracity of our religion is tied inextricably to the book. If the book is false, our entire religion is false. If the book is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the LDS Church is Christ’s church. It wouldn’t be logical to say the Bible is the keystone of our religion, because we’re not the only religion that claims the Bible as its own. The same goes for Christ, God, etc. The analogy only works because there is no other religion claiming the Book of Mormon (other than some small Mormon splinter groups). As for cornerstones, we would claim Christ as being the cornerstone of the LDS Church just as it states in the Bible that Christ’s church was set upon a foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ being the chief cornerstone.

Does this mean that what is said about the Bible being “true as far as it is translated correctly” apply to all religious books including the Book of Mormon?

If a book is translated from one language to another wouldn’t that mean a book is translated one too many times?

If a book is reprinted in its original language over a period of 100 years does that mean the book is translated too many times?

I’ve spoken too several people in many different religions, yet none have been able to show where the errors are in the Bible. Do you know of the specific errors?

Wouldn’t going back to the writings in a book’s original language help clarify things?

How can the Bible be used as a witness of the Book of Mormon when the Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of aborigine Americans?

“So why did Joseph Smith say the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion and not the Bible? Because the Book of Mormon is the primary means of proving the LDS Church is true. Every other Christian church already has the Bible, and proving the Bible is true doesn’t help you decide whether to join the Catholic church or the Baptist church.”

Good point on the BOM being the cornerstone of the LDS relgion. I have heard missionaries say the same thing about Joseph Smith.

The church that Jesus started has Him as the cornerstone. The Bible reveals this truth to us from the Book of Beginings (a.k.a. Genesis) to the Revelation of John. In other words, Jesus Christ is the Foundation and the Cornerstone the Bible tells us how it was accomplished (a.k.a. proves it). What helps a person to decide which church to join has everything to do with the message.