Bible, Which version?

[Guest HEthePrimate]

The LDS Church is not a dictatorship, and we are free to use whichever version of the Bible we choose. I like the KJV's beautiful language, but suspect there are better translations. Perhaps the Church sticks to the KJV out of a sense of tradition, and because it was the version most readily available to people in Joseph Smith's time. Since his time, other translations have appeared or become more widespread, but by then the KJV was already established among the LDS. I use the NIV along with the KJV, though I often prefer the archaic, yet beautiful English of the KJV.

DH

[VisionOfLehi]

Children who learn from the modern translations miss out on a lot of language history, "big" words, and a more challenging development of reading comprehension.

When teaching a primary class, I was amazed at how well these kids (I think 9 year olds) could read, and understand what they were reading. I was stunned at some of the words they easily read, and understood, because of family scripture study of these "difficult" texts.

[prisonchaplain]

Joseph Smith said it therefore it's good enough for me.

He said what? That the KJV was the best translation? Even if he specifically said this in the 1830s, would that statement necessarily apply to translation that came afterwards? It is fine to use the KJV, but if the discovery of earlier manuscripts suggests slightly different and more accurate meanings to a particular passage, I doubt that Joseph Smith would insist on the KJV rendoring. Of course, we are now firmly on the grounds of conjecture and speculation.

Whether there is good in other churches is an entirely different issue than which version of the Bible they use.

Is it possible Bibles produced by non-LDS Christian scholars after Joseph Smith's murder could be as good or better than the one he used? It's a very similar issue, imho.

To be honest, I am like some who have posted here. I really do believe some things are lost in the newer more modern translations. And, I do see where the changes can lead you to believe the verses actually mean something different.

There are minor changes, and a small number of passages have been called into question. BUT, what if the newer versions are correct and superior? The fact that a particular version was in vogue during Joseph Smith's lifetime does not necessarily mean that it is the sole, inspired translation.

Without the comeplte understanding of having a prophet and all of its implications, it is difficult to understand my view, I guess.

I can understand why LDS members might find the KJV preferable, due to its use during the founding of your church, due to it being one of the formative influences on Joseph Smith's life, and to to the continuity of it's cadence with the other Sacred Works. What I find questionable is the suggestion that the KJV is a more accurate and superior translation, in general.

[prisonchaplain]

Children who learn from the modern translations miss out on a lot of language history, "big" words, and a more challenging development of reading comprehension.

When teaching a primary class, I was amazed at how well these kids (I think 9 year olds) could read, and understand what they were reading. I was stunned at some of the words they easily read, and understood, because of family scripture study of these "difficult" texts.

Children can be taught to read well above the reading level. And, if the KJV were the only acceptable translation, we would do our best with it. However, it is a more difficult approach...and an unnecessary one. There is no spiritual or instructional advantage to forcing children to read Bible stories in verbage well above their comprehension level. IMHO, it's better to teach them using age-appropriate language, and then allowing them to grapple with analyzing and applying the lessons. Maybe that's the elementary school teacher in me coming out? (I taught 5th/6th graders for two years).

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

My institute teacher has a book specifically following Isaiah, entitled something like "Isaiah the Poet" or something like that. It's a translation (and commentary) designed to translate not just the words but the meaning and poetry behind Isaiah's revelations and visions. Translating Hebrew poetry is a tough task, but I found this book does a beautiful job of it, and it makes the KJV Isaiah look.... sissy.

I think the Lord expects us to use EVERY means at our disposal to learn of and grow closer to Him. "..If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, we seek after thse things," applies to scripture perhaps more than to any other thing. Look at the support the Church offers to preserving and translating things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. If we weren't meant to use them (prayerfully) then the Church wouldn't invest so heavily in their preservation.

I don't think any version or translation of scripture should be used exclusively. I do think reading the Joseph Smith Translation with the New International Version of the Bible might be silly...

And Lehi makes an excellent point. I taught Valiant 9 in primary for a while and those kids are AMAZING - in large part because they've read the "tough" English in the KJV.

[Maureen]

Since I've always read the KJV, and the version in Portuguese that is translated from the KJV...

That's not how translation is done. Bible Translation is the process of translating the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek into a modern language.

Portuguese Bible (Brazilian) :: Nova Versão Internacional (NVI)

This translation of the Bible is for the Brazilian dialect of the Portuguese language, which is primarily used in Brazil. This translation uses a semi-formal language style and applies a meaning-based translation philosophy. It is translated from the biblical languages and was completed in April 2000.

http://www.gospel.com/topics/nova+versão+internacional

João Ferreira Annes de Almeida...(1628–1691), was a Portuguese Protestant pastor; the eponymous Bible translation he began also goes by his name.

Ferreira de Almeida, born in Torres de Tavares, Portugal, is best known for his translation of the Bible into Portuguese, which he began at the age of 16, and continued translating until his death. He translated the New Testament completely and most books of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scripture). The translation was completed by his friend, Jacob op den Akker.

He was a Dutch Reformed pastor and worked with churches in Java (at the time a Dutch colony; modern-day Indonesia), and also preached in Goa on the Indian subcontinent (at the time a Portuguese colony, now part of India). Ferreira de Almeida died in Batavia, Java. Little is known his life; the majority of facts come from the preface of his Bible translation [1].

Ferreira de Almeida's translation of the Bible is most closely associated with Portuguese-speaking Protestants and is the most commonly used translation by Portuguese-speaking Protestant Evangelicals, particularly in Brazil. His work is the source of many Bible versions, like the Edição Revista e Corrigida (Revised and Corrected Edition, published in 1948, is an update of other editions), the Edição Revista e Atualizada (Revised and Updated Edition, most based in newer manuscripts), published by Brazilian Bible Society and Portuguese Bible Society, Almeida Corrigida e Fiel (Almeida Corrected and Faithful), by Trinitarian Bible Society of Brazil, and Edição Contemporânea de Almeida (Almeida's Contemporary Edition), by Editora Vida.

The main principle of translation used by Ferreira de Almeida was that of formal equivalence (following the syntax of the original text in the target language), and he utilized the Textus Receptus as textual basis. His Portuguese style is described as "classical and erudite" [2]; the Brazilian Bible Society states that Ferreira de Almedia sought to reflect both the form, style, and language register of the original texts in his translation.

João Ferreira de Almeida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

[Rico]

He said what? That the KJV was the best translation? Even if he specifically said this in the 1830s, would that statement necessarily apply to translation that came afterwards? It is fine to use the KJV, but if the discovery of earlier manuscripts suggests slightly different and more accurate meanings to a particular passage, I doubt that Joseph Smith would insist on the KJV rendoring. Of course, we are now firmly on the grounds of conjecture and speculation.

Thankfully Heavenly Father hasn't left us alone to conjecture and speculation. He has given us prophets in these latter times.

I can understand why LDS members might find the KJV preferable, due to its use during the founding of your church, due to it being one of the formative influences on Joseph Smith's life, and to to the continuity of it's cadence with the other Sacred Works. What I find questionable is the suggestion that the KJV is a more accurate and superior translation, in general.

I don't know about you, but I think it is impossible for either of us to say with any type of certainty that the KJV is either a more or less accurate translation. According to scholars more learned than I am, none of the versions of the Bible currently available are based off of the actual, original manuscripts.

This means that it's pure speculation that the NIV/New American Standard/NLT/KJV or any other version is more accurate than any other. It's simply impossible to say that a translation is accurate or not.

The prophets use the KJV when putting together messages and that says to me that they trust it more than other versions. And that's good enough for me.

[Traveler]

Since there has been no ancient text identified as the accurate text, it is a futile effort to determine which translation is the most accurate. The translations and modern versions should be updated as we learn more about the ancient text. The problem is that the reading of the ancient text is also affected by the current popular prejudices of modern believers – even among scholars.

The scriptures were not written by scholars. When Judaism and Christianity was Paganized it became the exploits of professional experts to desirer doctrine from sacred text. In Old Testament times such experts were sometimes called Chaldeans. These were Pagan oracles that made their living disclosing the secrets of divine text. This pagan method has become one of the most popular methods to resolve conflicts in scriptural understanding in our day. That is – with the exception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; which by covenant recieves the servants called by prophasy.

The Traveler

Edited July 14, 2008 by Traveler

[Moksha]

There is no spiritual or instructional advantage to forcing children to read Bible stories in verbage well above their comprehension level.

Same goes for adults. It is much better for folks like me to read the Bible and actually understand what it is saying. Leave that archaic stuff to the scholarly.

[PapilioMemnon]

That's not how translation is done. Bible Translation is the process of translating the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek into a modern language.

...

M.

Yes, indeed! I didn't express myself well; I meant a version in Portuguese comparable to the KJV.

Thanks... I'll fix that!

[prisonchaplain]

As for accuracy of translation...it seems the argument is for an "all or nothing" approach. What I am hearing is this:

1. We do not have the original text written by the biblical scholars.

2. THEREFORE we don't know what is right or how right it is.

3. BUT, since Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he used the King James Version with a good level of confidence, we'll stick to it.

My difficulties with this reasoning:

1. We have hundreds of ancient New Testament manuscripts dating from the 100s to the 1400s, and they are all remarkably similar in content.

2. The oldest manuscripts, being copied much sooner to the time of the actual events, are most often most accurate.

3. The most modern translations have the advantage of relying on the oldest manuscripts. They had more of them, and better quality ones to work with.

4. Therefore, imho, the most modern scholarly translations are most likely to be the most accurate.

[california_ave]

I don't know about you, but I think it is impossible for either of us to say with any type of certainty that the KJV is either a more or less accurate translation. According to scholars more learned than I am, none of the versions of the Bible currently available are based off of the actual, original manuscripts.

That is true, none of the autographs (original manuscripts) exist. (The plates Joseph translated were not autographs either--with the exception of Mormon's own words). Not having the autographs we don't know what is right and true unless a prophet quotes the text in conference, we therefore we must throw our hands in the air. NO! That is not the path the prophet Joseph took:

"I have an old book of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German and Greek. I have been reading the German and find it to be the most correct, and it corresponds nearest to the revelations I have given for the last fourteen years." Joseph Smith as reported in Times & Seasons, August 15, 1844.

Joseph loved languages and preferred the German translation of the Bible. Shouldn't we study and search the same as Joseph? Can't we use the Biblical scholarship of the last two centuries to help us understand God's word? With so much more manuscripts available now, can't we incorporate modern tools like textual criticism, DNA parchment analyzes, etc. and piece together a story of what the autographs looked like? Can't we use scholarship to get us closer to what the ancient apostles originally wrote? We can supplement this new-found understanding with the Holy Spirit, always welcoming correction and evolution in our scriptural understanding. Joseph corresponded his learning with his revelations to increase his understanding. Shouldn't we do the same?

[Snow]

The LDS Church has consistently used the King James Version as its standard English version of the Bible. This is the version that is in fact published by the church and included in the quadruple combination. This is the version that is quoted in General Conference and nearly all Church members bring to Sunday School and Seminary. The Church Handbook of Instructions states:

But we also accept that the Bible has flaws: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". When Joseph Smith wrote the article of faith to John Wentworth, the KJV was the dominate English translation and had been for centuries. We know that the KJV is rife with errors. Among the problems of the KJV, limited greek and hebrew texts were available to the translation scholars. We now have more ancient texts that indicate some relatively modern additions to the Bible (e.g., Comma Johanneum). Translators used Erasmus' Greek bible, which in part, was a translation of the Vulgate rather than Greek sources. Remember the telephone game and the story became more corrupted with each iteration? Imagine now going from Greek to Latin, to Greek, to English. Besides text issues, translators opted for form above substance--possibly corrupting doctrine in favor of poetry.

We are instructed to use the KJV, but a tenet of our faith admits there are translation errors. How do we reconcile this dilemma? Should we as LDS seek out a Bible that is translated more correctly? Joseph Smith said he preferred Luther's German Bible.

I use the KJV, the NIV and the RSV for study and sometimes the NKJV for simple reading. I even take them to Priesthood Meeting and have used them in teaching lessons. Nobody cares and a number of people comment that they do the same.

[Snow]

That is true, none of the autographs (original manuscripts) exist. (The plates Joseph translated were not autographs either--with the exception of Mormon's own words). Not having the autographs we don't know what is right and true unless a prophet quotes the text in conference, we therefore we must throw our hands in the air. NO! That is not the path the prophet Joseph took:

I don't think it is as bad as all that. Biblical scholarship, and the Church is not short on scholars in the field, estimate that seven-eights of the words from the original autographs of the New Testament are known for certain and the remaining eight relate mostly to order and form and do not affect doctrine.

There is serious doubt on only about 1/60th of the New Testament.

The bigger issue is about canonization... what got left out because it was never made part of the canon.

[Moksha]

The bigger issue is about canonization... what got left out because it was never made part of the canon.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some Monk who had a strong desire for preservation, buried the entire collection in a cellar somewhere and it is still waiting to be unearthed.

What a gift to humanity that would be.

[Rico]

Can't we use the Biblical scholarship of the last two centuries to help us understand God's word?

I agree that it is acceptable to read other versions. The New Living Translation is very easy to read and while it does suffer from errors, its easy to read style means that you can quickly read and get the main ideas and stories from the Bible. Sometimes the turn of a phrase just helps you understand the KJV. That's a good thing.

Where I part ways is that the NLT(and other versions for that matter) can not be definitive. The KJV is definitive. It has guidance from our prophets and church leaders in the form of footnotes and explanations. When an issue comes up concerning the meaning of a verse, the King James Version is the definitive version.

Reading the NIV and NLT is kind of like watching a Time Life movie on the life of Jesus. You can easily get the main point and it can help you understand all of the stories and lessons, but it can't help you come up with doctrines and ordinances.

I trust Mormon, I trust Moroni, I trust Joseph Smith, I trust President Thomas S Monson. I trust President Utchdorf, President Ehring and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

While I am sure the following list of people are nice guys and really do have the best intentions, I still do not trust them when it comes my eternal life. If I did then I would join their respective churches and happily read the NIV that they created.

1. John Stek, Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation

Calvin Theological Seminary, Part-time Professor of Old Testament

Denominational Affiliation: Christian Reformed Church

2. Donald H. Madvig, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation

Retired Pastor and Professor of Biblical Studies

Denominational Affiliation: Evangelical Covenant

3. Kenneth L. Barker, Secretary of the Committee on Bible Translation

Dallas Theological Seminary, Adjunct Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies

Denominational Affiliation: Southern Baptist

4. Gordon Fee

Regent College, Professor of New Testament Studies

Denominational Affiliation: Assemblies of God

5. Richard T. France

Parrish Minister, England and Wales

Denominational Affiliation: Church of England

6. Karen H. Jobes

Westmont College, Associate Professor of New Testament

Denominational Affiliation: Presbyterian Church of America

7. Walter Liefeld

Tyndale Theological Seminary, The Netherlands, Interim President

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Professor Emeritus of New Testament

Denominational Affiliation: Independent

8. I. Howard Marshall

University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Professor of New Testament Exegesis

Denominational Affiliation: Methodist

9. Alan R. Millard

University of Liverpool, England. Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages

Denominational Affiliation: Christian Brethren (Open Brethren)

10. Douglas Moo

Wheaton College Graduate School, Professor of New Testament

Wheaton College, PhD Coordinator in Biblical and Theological Studies

Denominational Affiliation: Independent

11. Martin J. Selman

Spurgeon's College, London, Deputy Principal

Denominational Affiliation: Baptist

12. Larry L. Walker

Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, Visiting Professor

Denominational Affiliation: Southern Baptist

13. Bruce K. Waltke

Regent College, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies

Reformed Theological Seminary, Professor of Old Testament

Denominational Affiliation: Baptist

14. Herbert M. Wolf

Wheaton College Graduate School

Denominational Affiliation: Independent Baptist

15. Ronald F. Youngblood

Chairman of the Board of Directors, International Bible Society

Bethel Seminary San Diego, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Hebrew

Denominational Affiliation: Baptist General Conference

[Still_Small_Voice]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some Monk who had a strong desire for preservation, buried the entire collection in a cellar somewhere and it is still waiting to be unearthed.

What a gift to humanity that would be.

There will be more scripture revealed in the future. Look at what Nephi wrote:

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. --II Nephi 29:11-13

[Traveler]

As for accuracy of translation...it seems the argument is for an "all or nothing" approach. What I am hearing is this:

1. We do not have the original text written by the biblical scholars.

2. THEREFORE we don't know what is right or how right it is.

3. BUT, since Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he used the King James Version with a good level of confidence, we'll stick to it.

My difficulties with this reasoning:

1. We have hundreds of ancient New Testament manuscripts dating from the 100s to the 1400s, and they are all remarkably similar in content.

2. The oldest manuscripts, being copied much sooner to the time of the actual events, are most often most accurate.

3. The most modern translations have the advantage of relying on the oldest manuscripts. They had more of them, and better quality ones to work with.

4. Therefore, imho, the most modern scholarly translations are most likely to be the most accurate.

Just pointing out that your "difficulties with this reasoning", numbers 2 and 4 are contradictions.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some Monk who had a strong desire for preservation, buried the entire collection in a cellar somewhere and it is still waiting to be unearthed.

What a gift to humanity that would be.

This has happened but the New Testament manuscripts are being kept from any public view or access - Just as 50 manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept from public view until early photos of all the manuscripts were found by accident and published on the internet - 40 years after they were discovered and hidden. BTW these DSS manuscripts have brought about more changes to current versions of the Old Testament than any other single discovery in history

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

This has happened but the New Testament manuscripts are being kept from any public view or access - Just as 50 manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept from public view until early photos of all the manuscripts were found by accident and published on the internet - 40 years after they were discovered and hidden. BTW these DSS manuscripts have brought about more changes to current versions of the Old Testament than any other single discovery in history

The Traveler

Why were the Scrolls hidden in the first place? I mean after they were discovered. And have they been officially published for everyone to see? I was under the impression that some parts were released but not the whole of the find.

[california_ave]

I use the KJV, the NIV and the RSV for study and sometimes the NKJV for simple reading. I even take them to Priesthood Meeting and have used them in teaching lessons. Nobody cares and a number of people comment that they do the same.

I started using the Zondervan Study Bible (NIV) a few years ago--picked it up at Walmart for $20. I bring it to Sunday School when we study the Bible. Indifferent of the translation, I find that it is like hearing the same story in different words and it expands my understanding. Sometimes teachers will ask me to read a passage in class to get a different perspective.

Above the text, I love the footnotes and integrated maps, charts, timelines, etc. I found when reading the NT, I had memorized the footnotes and found it harder to learn anything new from the text. The thorough reading aids make it easy to study. But that is just me.

[california_ave]

Just pointing out that your "difficulties with this reasoning", numbers 2 and 4 are contradictions.

The Traveler

I don't think you understand PC. Point #2 refers to ancient manuscripts, which are closer to the source--further up stream if you will and less likely to be corrupted. Point #4 refers to translations of all authoritative texts available. Given that many of the early texts were not available to KJ translators but are available know, the modern Biblical translations can benefit from these newly-discovered ancient documents.

[lilered]

As for me and my house - We shall continue to use the KJV/JST until such time as we are told to do othewise by the Prophet.

(P.S. To me, there is something inherently wrong with cherry picking multiple biblicial scripture translations to prove ones point that can not be made otherwise using the KJV translation.

[prisonchaplain]

Just pointing out that your "difficulties with this reasoning", numbers 2 and 4 are contradictions.

The Traveler

Let me help you.

2. The oldest manuscripts, being copied much sooner to the time of the actual events, are most often most accurate.

4. Therefore, imho, the most modern scholarly translations are most likely to be the most accurate.

Yes, it is ironic, but the most modern TRANSLATIONS make use of the oldest MANUSCRIPTS, and thus tend to be the most accurate.

[prisonchaplain]

For those interested in a general breakdown of some of the major English translations, see the following: Choosing a Bible Translation