Bible, Which version?

[Islander]

Let me help you.

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

One of the pitfalls of modern translations is the tendency to attempt to "modernize" the language based on the opinion of the translator. Two hundred years ago the word "wonderful" had a very different meaning than it does now. I have read some of the newer translations in several languages side by side with the KJV and they are all suspect, Spanish being absolutely the worse; the original translation of RV being already quite bad IMO.

I will stick with the KJV. I think the language used in the OT is quite beautiful in trying to mimic Hebrew poetry.

[Traveler]

Let me help you.

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

It is my understanding - therefore correct me if I am wrong but with rare exception modern renditions of scripture are versions and not translations.

But let me see if I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that during much of the 2000 years of traditional Christian history there appears to be a evolution of rendering the scriptures such that the content was slipping away from accuracy and that at some point in the modern era this trend was reversed and that since that point there has been a steady evolution toward rendering the scriptures more accurately?

The Traveler

[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.

We can only speculate as to why a certain Christian organization obtained complete control of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Jewish state of Israel, creating the Dead Sea Scroll Society and then only released the translations they wanted. Prior to 1993 any one that tried to question the translations rendered were criticized that they did not have complete understanding – not having access to the originals. 1993 was the year the photographs were discovered and distributed. The Dead Sea Scroll Society tried many legal suits to gain control but in the end lost control.

The intellectual field is still dominated so completely that the actual ancient name of the settlement by the Dead Sea is never published for fear of reprisals and being discredited. Also the Essens are given credit for DSS manuscripts despite the fact that there is not even one artifact of evidence and hundreds of artifacts that prove that the source was not Essen.

In 1849 a copy of the New Testament was discovered but has been kept from public knowledge. It would have remained that way but the manuscripts were kept unchallenged by the Eastern Orthodox Church and fell into Russian Communist hands. When communism fell in Russia a list of religious Icons were published before they were returned. I personally joined with some Eastern Orthodox friends to notify religious leaders through out the world to petition for these manuscripts be made available to the public. We were greatly outnumbered and were not even able to get a list of the books that comprised this great library. It is my understanding that this library has been dated to a time that apostles may still have been alive. It is speculated that some of the manuscripts may have been written by the authors themselves which would make them the only autograph manuscripts of any ancient scripture.

It is my personal speculation that the only reason these manuscripts remain hidden (“sealed”) is because they would change the current understanding of things.

The Traveler

[Rico]

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

Thanks for the link there. Again, I am sorry, but I am going to hesitate to take the advice on choosing a bible version from a denomination that feels that gay marriage is ok and allows openly homosexual men and women to be "priests." Of course, that's just me.

I am really curious why you feel the need to keep harping on about all of these other versions being better than the KJV? Calling one version more accurate than another is merely guesswork and without the original manuscripts, it's impossible for any of us to make the claim that one translation is more accurate than other. Just because several works look the same, doesn't mean any of them are accurate.

I trust the our prophets on this. As I have said before, until they say that another translation is just as good or better, I might read another version, but I will not RELY on another version.

Traveler, yep, as the world gets more and evil and further away from Heavenly Father, the groups that advocate these changes are involved in translating/versioning the Bible more and more.

[Rico]

For fun, take a look at Virgina Mollenkott:

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She was responsible for making the wording on the NIV sound beautiful and flowing as the stylistic consultant. She advocates using a gender neutral term for God.....instead of Heavenly Father, she would prefer us to use Heavenly Parent, I suppose.

Don't get me wrong she does have strong "family" values. According to her website:

With her life partner, Suzannah Tiltm, Virginia lives in northern New Jersey and co-grandmother's their three delightful grandaughters.

[prisonchaplain]

It is my understanding - therefore correct me if I am wrong but with rare exception modern renditions of scripture are versions and not translations.

That is a misunderstanding. The Living Bible was a paraphrase (1972). However, "versions," nearly always are indeed translations--meaning that those who prepared them used Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts to translate them into English. Even The Message, which is often spoken of as a paraphrase, was translated from the original languages. Also, Tyndale House (publisher of the Living Bible paraphrase) has since come out with the New Living Translation--and has ceased publishing the older paraphrase.

But let me see if I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that during much of the 2000 years of traditional Christian history there appears to be a evolution of rendering the scriptures such that the content was slipping away from accuracy and that at some point in the modern era this trend was reversed and that since that point there has been a steady evolution toward rendering the scriptures more accurately?

The Traveler

I'm saying that the manuscripts available for the KJV translators were mostly from the Middle Ages. Likewise through much of the 19th century. In the last 100 years many many manuscripts that are much older--dating to the 100s have been discovered. The wordings are mostly the same, but of course, with copying, there are a few subtle differences. And, since the older were ones were copied closer to the originals, they tend to be more accurate.

[Snow]

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

The Traveler

Not at all.

2 talks about the manuscripts and 4 talks about translations - modern translations that make use of the oldest manuscripts - that were not available in earlier translations.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for the link there. Again, I am sorry, but I am going to hesitate to take the advice on choosing a bible version from a denomination that feels that gay marriage is ok and allows openly homosexual men and women to be "priests." Of course, that's just me.

I believe your description of Presbyterian policy towards homosexual marriage and ordination is inaccurate. PC(USA) - Presbyterian 101 - Homosexuality

Additionally, did you even read the article? It was a very general and brief description of the various translations--mostly just facts. So, I'm not sure what the introduction of such an unrelated, but emotinoally charged issue, does to help this conversation.

I am really curious why you feel the need to keep harping on about all of these other versions being better than the KJV? Calling one version more accurate than another is merely guesswork and without the original manuscripts, it's impossible for any of us to make the claim that one translation is more accurate than other.

First, I am not belittling or questioning the quality and value of the KJV. There is absolutely no sin or harm in relying on it as your Bible. However, the arguments I've heard in favor of it are mostly grounded in tradition, and the fact that it was the one Joseph Smith used.

Yes, scholars can determine which manuscripts are more accurate, and thus can translate the Bible more accurately, when they have a larger pool of manuscripts dating much closer to the time of the originals. Besides, it's just common sense that if you have several manuscripts dating only a few years after a major event, vs. a very few manuscripts dating 100s of years afterward, that the former set is going to be more accurate.

Just because several works look the same, doesn't mean any of them are accurate.

Yes, and the favorite doesn't always win, either. It's still the best bet, though (I don't gamble either...just an analogy, here).

I trust the our prophets on this. As I have said before, until they say that another translation is just as good or better, I might read another version, but I will not RELY on another version.

That's okay. However, I'm not sure that the prophets have said that the KJV is the best, the most accurate, or the exclusive version for the church. It's the only one the church publishes...so that may be your standard, and that's fine.

Traveler, yep, as the world gets more and evil and further away from Heavenly Father, the groups that advocate these changes are involved in translating/versioning the Bible more and more.

I hope I'm not reading that you believe that those groups and scholars who translate for modern versions of the Bible are spurring on or contributing to this evil and furthering people away from the Heavenly Father???

[jadams_4040]

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 have been getting quoted from ssooo many differant bibles lately its crazy, and the more time marches on; the more these new translations get sssoooo far off track and original meaning its really crazy. I see that a lot of the "new and improved" translations are simply for someone to make money and are not inspired at all.:)

[Islander]

A couple of more cents:

The DSS offer the most complete and early dated (except the book of Ruth) OT library to date. Some early Greek versions of the NT books have surfaced in the last 100 years with copies of the Gospels and some of the letters of the Apostles. Some of these documents on papyrus that can be dated to the first 300 years AD. Other than scholarly debate and interest, textual variances found in these documents have proved to be of no significant theological variances from the source material used for the translation of the KJV.

I find suspect any suggestion to change the language of the scriptures based on modern bias and theo-socio-political agendas. I think advocating for a g"ender neutral description" of deity evidenced such agendas at work.

[prisonchaplain]

I have been getting quoted from ssooo many differant bibles lately its crazy, and the more time marches on; the more these new translations get sssoooo far off track and original meaning its really crazy. I see that a lot of the "new and improved" translations are simply for someone to make money and are not inspired at all.:)

I suppose this is an opinion...an awfully jaded one, though. Can you provide one example of a modern translation being off track, and away from the original meaning??? Keep in mind that Jesus, Peter, James and Paul did not speak Elizabethan English. Also, to suggest that Bible scholars are just in it for the money...I'm not sure what the line is between opinion and accusation.

[Rico]

I believe your description of Presbyterian policy towards homosexual marriage and ordination is inaccurate. PC(USA) - Presbyterian 101 - Homosexuality

Excuse me, they have voted for it and are in the process of approving the changes. Currently, Presbyterian Ministers are allowed to bless same sex unions.

Additionally, did you even read the article? It was a very general and brief description of the various translations--mostly just facts. So, I'm not sure what the introduction of such an unrelated, but emotinoally charged issue, does to help this conversation.

The bias of those doing the translations are very important and very much related to end results, the new versions. Your "facts" seem to be pointing out the errors of the using a King James version and getting people to use an alternative version.

I disagree, none of us can say for certain that the King James version was or was not more accurate. PC, you seem to be going on and on about how these other versions are more accurate. Can you prove that they are more accurate or is it just the opinion of "experts"?

Can you tell us why you want us to the trust the opinions of these "experts" instead of trusting our Church leaders?

Yes, scholars can determine which manuscripts are more accurate, and thus can translate the Bible more accurately, when they have a larger pool of manuscripts dating much closer to the time of the originals. Besides, it's just common sense that if you have several manuscripts dating only a few years after a major event, vs. a very few manuscripts dating 100s of years afterward, that the former set is going to be more accurate.

That's why you say, but it's not a fact. It's just an opinion. There seems to be manuscripts popping up all the time, saying this or saying that. When I look at all of these different bibles, it seems really confusing to me. I am certain of only one thing: The father of confusion is Satan.

I hope I'm not reading that you believe that those groups and scholars who translate for modern versions of the Bible are spurring on or contributing to this evil and furthering people away from the Heavenly Father???

Are you saying that personal basis has never entered into the groups and scholars when they have been creating a version? I believe that the people doing the translations have let their opinions enter into the translations and that the versions are allowing false doctrines to exist and thrive.

I am sure everyone involved in these bible projects are great people, but they do not have the Restored Gospel and they do hold incorrect beliefs.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Wow this is getting heated.... I think some of you all need to take a time out. Seriously.

Yes, the LDS use of the KJV is firmly grounded in tradition. So? Joseph Smith was prophetically told that the Bible (in any form) had become corrupted and that many "plain and precious truths had been lost" over time. Thus the need for him to translate the Bible through spiritual and revelatary means. Therefore, by LDS theology, NO version of the Bible is true and correct without the Joseph Smith Translation and the Holy Spirit to guide the reader. Period.

Yes, modern translations have access to ancient manuscripts that are potentially closer to the originals. So? Even if we had the originals, there would be no way to authenticate them AS originals - you can't exactly ask Paul to come down and do a hand writing test for comparison. Unless you're Mormon. Oh wait, Joseph Smith did that, it's called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Go dude for being 170+ years ahead of your time.

If you are LDS then you should not study ANY version of the Bible without using the JST to assist your understanding. If you are using the JST and prayer and the Holy Ghost, then it shouldn't matter (much) which version of the Bible you use. The only caveat is that the (English) JST was written specifically for the KJV, so the language and writing styles will match better.

If you are NOT LDS then it really doesn't matter what version of the Bible you use because they are all going to have errors and omissions and you don't have modern revelation to make up for those drawbacks. Scholarship can not compare to revelation.

Therefore, I declare the point moot and the discussion over. Players should return to their respective corners and wait patiently for the final round.

[Dr T]

The final will affect us all. I'd suggest rethinking all the points above. :)

[Snow]

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.

I have the Thomas Nelson Publishers' New King James Version with Study Notes. It's packed with all sorts of interesting side material. I liked it so much that I called Deseret Books and asked them if they had a "study bible." ...no clue what I was talking about.

[Traveler]

That is a misunderstanding. The Living Bible was a paraphrase (1972). However, "versions," nearly always are indeed translations--meaning that those who prepared them used Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts to translate them into English. Even The Message, which is often spoken of as a paraphrase, was translated from the original languages. Also, Tyndale House (publisher of the Living Bible paraphrase) has since come out with the New Living Translation--and has ceased publishing the older paraphrase.

I'm saying that the manuscripts available for the KJV translators were mostly from the Middle Ages. Likewise through much of the 19th century. In the last 100 years many many manuscripts that are much older--dating to the 100s have been discovered. The wordings are mostly the same, but of course, with copying, there are a few subtle differences. And, since the older were ones were copied closer to the originals, they tend to be more accurate.

We are at an impasse my friend because you and I have a very different concept in the difference between a translation and a version. To me if something has more than one source the result must be a version and a compromise – regardless if translation is involved or not. A translation on the other hand is a mapping from one source to one result with much less room for “fudging”. What you are telling me is that a completely new version is created first; one that has never existed (that G-d never caused to be written) and from that new version based on a unspecified collection a translation is made. Do you really feel good about this?

I find it very ironic that we are told there is no “worth while” difference in all the ancient manuscripts and at the same time there is not one ancient manuscript worthy of being translated directly with rare exception. I bought a translation of the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll. I bought it because it was the only direct single source translation from any existing ancient manuscript that I know of and I find that translation one of my most valued possessions. And I do find lots of differences many in places I would not have thought. I now collect any direct translation of any ancient scriptural manuscript I can find. I would prefer that we have access to every manuscript through direct translation – I believe it would change the entire structure of religious discussions.

In the meantime I find it most interesting and a very important principle that it is “necessary” that in this day and age to have a new version of the scriptures that has never before existed with the concept that in the past the farther in time a version was from the original the less accurate it was.

The Traveler

[Islander]

PC - I think we are going to split the difference in this one as well.

In a way, these new "translations" use ONLY the best available information, theological bias, sectarian influence and consensus to "come up" with a version of the document in question. The evidence is that A Dominican and an Episcopalian will come up with variances of the exact same text. I was just discussing the issue with a casual travel companion on a recent trip. The word "saints" appears dozens of times in both the OT and the NT. It means the elect, consecrated, set apart, dedicated, part of and selected. It was a common designation for the faithful, the members of the congregation, the elect of God and those dedicated to serve Him. In summary, the members of the church!! That meaning and context all but disappeared under RCC influence.

Ancient Rabis fell in the same trap. They substituted scholarly pursue of the Law of Moses (the creation of the Mishnah and the Talmud) for the revelation of God. They discarded prophesy and faith for the outward performance and regulatory observance of the commandment. They elevated the "study and research" of the Torah and equated it with the worship of God.

The last issue; no prophet is ever believed in his time. My favorite example: Jeremiah was in jail (accused of blasphemy against the king!!) while the Babylonians were blasting thru the walls of Jerusalem. Oh, that after walking the streets for a couple of years, halfway naked, warning the people and calling them to repentance.

[prisonchaplain]

I have no desire to stir the pot, and have not condemned, nor criticized the use of the KJV. Rather, I've pointed out some of the advantages of the more modern versions. I've explained why.

Some LDS see the benefit of at least referring to other translations, for added perspective. Others seem satisfied with exclusive use of the KJV.

For the record, Christians of all stripes recognize that without the leading of the Holy Spirit, Bible study, even with fluent understanding of the original languages, will be fruitless. Seeking God's understanding while Bible reading/studying should be a given.

So, if thou readest in the KJV thou doest well. If you take advantage of additional scholarship and understanding that God has given since 1611, you do well also, imho.

[VisionOfLehi]

BibleGateway.com - Over 50 online Bibles in 35 languages, in text and audio format.

I have to say, I wouldn't mind having a copy of this one:

BibleGateway.com - Version information: Young's Literal Translation

Edited July 16, 2008 by VisionOfLehi

[Snow]

We are at an impasse my friend because you and I have a very different concept in the difference between a translation and a version. To me if something has more than one source the result must be a version and a compromise – regardless if translation is involved or not. A translation on the other hand is a mapping from one source to one result with much less room for “fudging”. What you are telling me is that a completely new version is created first; one that has never existed (that G-d never caused to be written) and from that new version based on a unspecified collection a translation is made. Do you really feel good about this?

... not sure where you are going with this. The KJV is a version (as opposed to a translation), even according to your definition. It was based on the 5th edition (by Besa, 1598) of Erasmus' Textus Receptus, which was based upon a collection of a number of different manuscripts.

[Maureen]

I agree that it is acceptable to read other versions...

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.

...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...

I realize that this thread is asking about the KJV but I was curious if Bible translations in other languages used by members of the LDS church also have these footnotes and explanations?

BTW, it wouldn't be surprised if President Uchtdorf not only would read the KJV but possibly a German translation as well. Would this German translation have these footnotes?

M.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Maureen

[Maureen]

I have been getting quoted from ssooo many differant bibles lately its crazy, and the more time marches on; the more these new translations get sssoooo far off track and original meaning its really crazy. I see that a lot of the "new and improved" translations are simply for someone to make money and are not inspired at all.:)

You make it sound like there is some sort of evil English Bible translation conspiracy out there. Would this conspiracy also exist with non-English Bible translations as well?

M.

[Islander]

I have no desire to stir the pot, and have not condemned, nor criticized the use of the KJV. Rather, I've pointed out some of the advantages of the more modern versions. I've explained why.

Some LDS see the benefit of at least referring to other translations, for added perspective. Others seem satisfied with exclusive use of the KJV.

For the record, Christians of all stripes recognize that without the leading of the Holy Spirit, Bible study, even with fluent understanding of the original languages, will be fruitless. Seeking God's understanding while Bible reading/studying should be a given.

So, if thou readest in the KJV thou doest well. If you take advantage of additional scholarship and understanding that God has given since 1611, you do well also, imho.

I can appreciate that PC. I think, however, that in your assertion that "Christians recognized that without the leading of the Holy Spirit, Bible study, even with fluent understanding of the original languages, will be fruitless" you are making a huge concession. Most other Christians that I had encountered in almost 10 years never heard of praying for discernment from the Holy Ghost in order to understand the things of God. Granted, I do not know that many people to generalize, but I think you are within the few enlightened minority that truly understands the workings of God among His children.

And I will not bother you with the translation issue any more. I think I understand what you are trying to say...Besides, I think you are a pretty cool dude.

[prisonchaplain]

I can appreciate that PC. I think, however, that in your assertion that "Christians recognized that without the leading of the Holy Spirit, Bible study, even with fluent understanding of the original languages, will be fruitless" you are making a huge concession. Most other Christians that I had encountered in almost 10 years never heard of praying for discernment from the Holy Ghost in order to understand the things of God. Granted, I do not know that many people to generalize, but I think you are within the few enlightened minority that truly understands the workings of God among His children.

And I will not bother you with the translation issue any more. I think I understand what you are trying to say...Besides, I think you are a pretty cool dude.

Well, thankya! Perhaps to clarify a bit. I'll speak for "most evangelicals," since that's my camp. We believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. We are encouraged to pray for direction and understanding from the Holy Spirit, when we study his Word.

It is true that some Christians will misunderstand seeking the Spirit's direction, by saying such things as the Bible is an objective Word with one objective meaning, that is not subject to interpretation. Also, some evangelicals and fundamentalists are non-pentecostal/charismatic, and so tend to hesitate about verbage suggesting spiritual discernment, for fear of sounding subjective and doctrinally ungrounded.

Nevertheless, at least in a broad sense, most Christians do understand that the Bible is a spiritual book, requiring spiritual help to fully appreciate. The idea of Spirit vs. Bible is a false dichotamy, imho...Knowledge "on fire!"--let them compliment each other.

[Moksha]

However, the arguments I've heard in favor of it are mostly grounded in tradition, and the fact that it was the one Joseph Smith used.

Wish Joseph and Oliver Cowdery had owned The Message Bible. There is nary a "it came to pass" in the whole book.

Keep in mind that Jesus, Peter, James and Paul did not speak Elizabethan English.

Are you certain? Would this not have profound implications if they spoke Aramaic or something?