Bible, Which version?

[Vort]

I substituted for the 13-14-y-o Sunday school class teacher. In talking about scriptures, I mentioned that Jesus didn't speak English. One young lady (a very sweet girl whom I like very much, and whose parents I greatly admire) looked at me wide-eyed and said, "Really?" She was serious; she had no idea that the mortal Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English. I always feel like I'm treading on sacred ground when I introduce such new concepts to young people, even (or especially) when they are not my own children.

As for this topic: As I've mentioned elsewhere, one big problem I have with some new English "translations" (which are really more like vernacular renderings) is the casual speech patterns employed. God is a being of dignity, and the speech used toward (and by) him should reflect that fact.

Another problem I have is that no modern translation uses "thou". What's up with that? How on earth are we supposed to tell who a person is talking to when using "you"? Drives me crazy. I just listened to a 12-hour lecture on "The Historical Jesus", and felt like pulling my hair out through most of it because the lecturer was constantly drawing unwarranted conclusions and building a house of cards. One of the things that I noticed is that he talked about Jesus speaking to Caiaphas and saying, "You will see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven." He then went on at length about how Jesus was saying to the priest that he, personally, would see this. Now, this didn't jibe with my own (admittedly non-photographic) memory of the account, so I checked in Matthew. Sure enough, the rendering is, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The pronoun "ye" indicates that Jesus was speaking to the entire group, not to the high priest individually. Amazingly, the lecturer had apparently no understanding of this.

This division between "thou" and "ye" is important throughout the Bible. Much is lost of this difference is not preserved, yet almost no thought to its importance goes into any modern English translation. Consider the Lord's words to Peter in Luke 22: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [that is, all of you, my disciples], that he may sift you [all of you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [Peter, individually], that thy [Peter's] faith fail not: and when thou [Peter] art converted, strengthen thy brethren." This is a profoundly intimate exchange, where the Lord tells Peter of the general risk to all of them, and then says that Peter himself has been the individual target of prayers of faith by the Son of God and that, when he receives this faith, he is to use it for the benefit of the others. Yet this intimacy is mostly lost in modern English translations.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

OK Vort, I'm starting a thread for your sake. I'll edit and link to it when I've got it started.

Somethine along the lines of "The Formality of Deity" perhaps....

:edit:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/12823-formality-deity-what-god-like.html#post229918

Edited July 16, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Snow]

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.

The KJV is not "definitive." It is the preferred version. The actions of President Spencer Kimball to release a new edition with footnotes, explanation and cross reference is incredibly persuasive but that doesn't make it definitive. Any good (or even marginal) LDS scholar in the field can easily tell you the many errors in the KJV.

[VisionOfLehi]

If you want an amusing, and possibly sacrilegious Bible...

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

>_>

[Traveler]

... 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.

There are three points or places I am going that I believe are very important.

• That all modern renditions of Biblical scriptures are versions even when translation is involved. It is important to note that these modern versions are created with no intention of providing insight into any single ancient or single modern document. They are all modern creations and are deeply integrated into modern methods and scholarship.
• The second very important consideration is a warning in scripture specific to the “Last Days” to avoid the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the learned.
• The denominational divisions in Christianity are a direct result of different readings of Biblical versions of scriptures. As long as Christians refuse to use the same standard version any efforts at unity will be illusive.

Until there is a single source there can be no valid translations and the Biblical prophesies of gathering to wait the second coming of Christ must come by some other means. But then you already knew all this - never-the-less; thank you very much for asking.

The Traveler

[Shaliach]

I lean toward the Aramaic Peshitta.

[Traveler]

The purpose of scripture is to bring a person to Christ – not one of 10,000 dominations or “movements” that suit them. Reading scriptures and attending church will no more make someone a Christian (disciple of Christ) than sleeping in a garage will make someone a Chevy.

If we define our allies in Christ by the version of the Bible they read – we are not Disciples of Christ.

The Traveler

[Shaliach]

Good point!

[PapilioMemnon]

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.

Well, it's been a long time I got mine in Portuguese from the Church headquaters, and no, it's didn't come with the footnotes or explanations or JST! It's was the version comparable to the KJV, so you're talking about not a modern Portuguese as well.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

If you want an amusing, and possibly sacrilegious Bible...

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

>_>

I am SO going to take that to church and read it during Sunday School lessons! Haha it's just too good.

[Maureen]

The purpose of scripture is to bring a person to Christ – not one of 10,000 dominations or “movements” that suit them. Reading scriptures and attending church will no more make someone a Christian (disciple of Christ) than sleeping in a garage will make someone a Chevy.

If we define our allies in Christ by the version of the Bible they read – we are not Disciples of Christ.

The Traveler

But being so paranoid about Christian denominations and multiple Bible translations (you do realize that there are multiple languages all over the world); that you avoid attending a church or reading scripture isn't really going to help learn about Christ. The world is a big place, with multiple and diverse cultures; and God happens to be the creator of those diverse and complex people. If God's not afraid of variety why should we be.

M.

[Snow]

The purpose of scripture is to bring a person to Christ – not one of 10,000 dominations or “movements” that suit them. Reading scriptures and attending church will no more make someone a Christian (disciple of Christ) than sleeping in a garage will make someone a Chevy.

If we define our allies in Christ by the version of the Bible they read – we are not Disciples of Christ.

The Traveler

I would suggest that reading the scriptures and attending church will more likely make or help make one a Christian that the contrary - or sleeping in the garage will.

[Snow]

There are three points or places I am going that I believe are very important.

• That all modern renditions of Biblical scriptures are versions even when translation is involved. It is important to note that these modern versions are created with no intention of providing insight into any single ancient or single modern document. They are all modern creations and are deeply integrated into modern methods and scholarship.
• The second very important consideration is a warning in scripture specific to the “Last Days” to avoid the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the learned.
• The denominational divisions in Christianity are a direct result of different readings of Biblical versions of scriptures. As long as Christians refuse to use the same standard version any efforts at unity will be illusive.

Until there is a single source there can be no valid translations and the Biblical prophesies of gathering to wait the second coming of Christ must come by some other means. But then you already knew all this - never-the-less; thank you very much for asking.

The Traveler

Item 1. Any evidence to indicate that is correct?

Item 2. The Church leadership is full of learned men as is the Church's educational system which is very influential in the Church.

Item 3. Any evidence for that either? It could be the reverse, or neither. After all, there are a couple dozen English translations/versions and yet thousands of different denominations, sects and churches.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Snow

[Moksha]

If you want an amusing, and possibly sacrilegious Bible...

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

>_>

Genesis 3 - At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.

4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.

5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

[prisonchaplain]

Since Christian denominations are at peace with one another, for the most part, why would they see the need to agree on one version? If we don't believe it is necessary to have a single denomination, why would we need a single translation???

And this point perhaps enlightens me as to why some LDS are so loyal to the KJV. If there is one true restored church, than maybe there should only be one official version? I'm not sure...just a thought.

[Snow]

Since Christian denominations are at peace with one another, for the most part, why would they see the need to agree on one version? If we don't believe it is necessary to have a single denomination, why would we need a single translation???

And this point perhaps enlightens me as to why some LDS are so loyal to the KJV. If there is one true restored church, than maybe there should only be one official version? I'm not sure...just a thought.

At peace?

Is that the standard - that they not try and kill each other... like they used to?

[VisionOfLehi]

And this point perhaps enlightens me as to why some LDS are so loyal to the KJV. If there is one true restored church, than maybe there should only be one official version? I'm not sure...just a thought.

Well... I believe a prophet once declared it the best to use, or something similar.

But if you REALLY want to know about and get closer to Christ, you could just read the Book of Mormon. Hard to go wrong there.

[tammyi]

I believe its up to the person which bible they want to use. If we walk in the spirit God tells us truths through his spirit.

[prisonchaplain]

At peace?

Is that the standard - that they not try and kill each other... like they used to?

The light is getting brighter.

[california_ave]

Well... I believe a prophet once declared it the best to use, or something similar.

Maybe it was this declaration you remember hearing as part of the King Follet discourse:

"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." Following this declaration, Joseph demonstrates a single example of the poor translation of the KJV and how the other languages mentioned all agree on the "correct" meaning.

Granted Joseph didn't say Luther's Bible was the "best", but he definitely thought it was the "most correct"--i.e., more correct than KJV. Do we not understand this to be literal? Do we dismiss Joseph's opinion because it is counter to our later cultural traditions and uniformity of the church?

[prospectmom]

Bible

The Bible is the word of God. It is a witness for God and Jesus Christ. Members of the Church are encouraged to study it and follow its teachings. The Church uses many translations of the Bible in various languages. In English, the King James Version is used as the official Bible of the Church.

I went to lds.org and went to the " ask a ouestion section" the above is what I found......

[Traveler]

I would suggest that reading the scriptures and attending church will more likely make or help make one a Christian that the contrary - or sleeping in the garage will.

Based on what era of history? From our own era: Do you know what the 3rd Richt was?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

But being so paranoid about Christian denominations and multiple Bible translations (you do realize that there are multiple languages all over the world); that you avoid attending a church or reading scripture isn't really going to help learn about Christ. The world is a big place, with multiple and diverse cultures; and God happens to be the creator of those diverse and complex people. If God's not afraid of variety why should we be.

M.

I am quite sure that Satan is also not afraid of variety in methods of worship and that he is much more pleased with such variety than is G-d.

May I ask a question? What in scripture has convinced so many that G-d sounds a “uncertain” trumpet in his word?

I do not believe the word of G-d is to be spun according to nation, tongue or people but that the same message should be given to all.

If multiple denominations of followers and versions of G-d’s word is so acceptable why can’t multiple G-ds of definitions of G-d be just as acceptable (See John chapter 17)

Why are you so paranoid about a straight and narrow way?

The Traveler

[Rico]

Bible

The Bible is the word of God. It is a witness for God and Jesus Christ. Members of the Church are encouraged to study it and follow its teachings. The Church uses many translations of the Bible in various languages. In English, the King James Version is used as the official Bible of the Church.

I went to lds.org and went to the " ask a ouestion section" the above is what I found......

Sure enough and here is the link:

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Bible

Furthermore in the book, True To The Faith (A Gospel Reference), on page 157, it states the following:

Because the Bible has been translated many times, it is printed in different versions. In English, the King James Version of the Bible is accepted as scripture by the Church.

I think this just about settles it. I think some have said that it isn't official, but that makes it clear. The King James Version is the official Bible of the Church.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Rico

[Rico]

Pondering the statement from True To The Faith, it seems like the Church position is that the other English versions are not officially accepted as scripture. Wow, it's very clear. No room to dispute it.