the bible?

[daenvgiell]

I know that we use the King James version, but someone recently said, how do we know that we (latter-day saints) have not changed the words? I explained that the only difference that I would think there is between our king james version and someone who has one not linked to the B.O.M is that we have foot notes and citations between all our books.

Is this correct?

[gabelpa]

That is correct. We have more extensive footnotes and cross-references than many other Bibles, plus cross-referencing into the other Standard Works. The actual scriptural text is the King James version. The Joseph Smith Translations are not added into the text, but are an addendum, and contained within the footnotes.

[daenvgiell]

that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure

[Justice]

Yes, the KJV we use is identical to the ones everyone else uses.

I often wonder why we don't use the Inspired Version, or the Joseph Smith translation.

The obvious answer, however, is can you imagine how missionaries would struggle if they had a new book of scripture and their "own" version of the Bible?

I think it's best to use the standard version, and when one gets baptized and understands more and more principles, to then be exposed to the JST.

Good question, and keep up the missionary work!

[applepansy]

The church asked for and received permissiong from the Official publisher's of the King James Version of the Bible to reformat and add the cross referencing. It is my understanding that the publisher was involved in the process. I know it was announced in conference. I'm not sure where though.

I found the following article but I'm not sure its the one I'm remembering. I'll have to look further another time.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Coming Forth of the LDS Editions of Scripture

[Jbs2763]

I can't find the story right now, saw it on a church DVD of some sort, that after the church added all the cross reference stuff...we won an award of some sort by a bible group.... vauge i know....but i cant find the story at the moment

[Maya]

Ofcourse KJV version is only in English speaking countries. We use any tarnaslation. We do not have KJV verson translated as our theologs (not LDS) trnaslate directly from Greek. However sometimes they make mistakes when translateing and then those that can English find help in KJV.

[Wingnut]

I often wonder why we don't use the Inspired Version, or the Joseph Smith translation.

The obvious answer, however, is can you imagine how missionaries would struggle if they had a new book of scripture and their "own" version of the Bible?

Another reason is (I think) because the LDS Church doesn't own the copyright on the complete JST. I'm pretty sure that's owned by the Community of Christ.

[Celica]

We don't use the Joseph Smith version of the bible because after he died Emma Smith, gave it to the RLDs. Because they had it all these years, the mainstream chruch can't be sure it has'nt been tampered with.

LDS.org - New Era Article - Q&A: Questions and Answers

[Justice]

We have a fair amount of it. I'm not sure of the legalities in why we can use some of it, but not all of it.

But, yes, that could very well be another reason why we don't use it.

However, I believe if we were intended to use it exclusively, we would be. :)

[Traveler]

It might be interesting here to mention that because of the Dead Sea Scriptures all modern versions of the Bible have been updated. This includes the KJV. However, the LDS have not changed the version that we use because we also have other scriptures to clarify obscurities that have crept into scriptures over the last 2000 years.

The DSS have changed both traditional Christian and traditional Jewish belief in which of the ancient scriptural text are the most accurate. This has also impacted the doctrines upheld by traditional scholars that dictate what many believe. For example many Christians believe that the Bible is the authority for doctrine. So if more accurate scriptures are found then they must change their doctrine.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

It might be interesting here to mention that because of the Dead Sea Scriptures all modern versions of the Bible have been updated. This includes the KJV. However, the LDS have not changed the version that we use because we also have other scriptures to clarify obscurities that have crept into scriptures over the last 2000 years.

The DSS have changed both traditional Christian and traditional Jewish belief in which of the ancient scriptural text are the most accurate. This has also impacted the doctrines upheld by traditional scholars that dictate what many believe. For example many Christians believe that the Bible is the authority for doctrine. So if more accurate scriptures are found then they must change their doctrine.

The Traveler

There are many myths out there about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I must say that most are extra biblical texts and those books or fragments that do match the books of our Bible, they match very close.

Expecially the Isaiah scrolls which is one of the very few intact books have backed up the bible version of who wrote Isaiah against the so-called scholars who say at least two writers were involved.

Also the book matches the Masoretic Text over the Latin Text of the so-called LXX.

There is nothing that pertains to the Apostolic Church that Jesus set up.

No books of the New Testament to compare with.

Bro. Rudick

[Maya]

What was done in the update?

[Jamie123]

Ofcourse KJV version is only in English speaking countries. We use any tarnaslation. We do not have KJV verson translated as our theologs (not LDS) trnaslate directly from Greek. However sometimes they make mistakes when translateing and then those that can English find help in KJV.

I've often wondered what Mormons do about the Bible in non English-speaking countries. If independent non-English translations are allowed, why are the LDS so against using other English translations (RSV, NIV, Good News etc.)? Biblical scholarship has moved on since 1611. Many older and more reliable manuscripts have come to light since then, and these have been available to the more recent translators.

(Of course you may take the view that the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus contain Satanic alterations, and though older are less reliable than the MSS available in 1611, but I've never heard any Mormon say this.)

Edited March 12, 2009 by Jamie123

[daenvgiell]

Ok so I just heard that the King James Version is the most incorrectly translated bible there is? what on earth is going on?

[Just_A_Guy]

I've often wondered what Mormons do about the Bible in non English-speaking countries. If independent non-English translations are allowed, why are the LDS so against using other English translations (RSV, NIV, Good News etc.)

I believe the Church authorizes one particular version. In Brazil, it was the Joao Ferreira de Alameida translation.

I don't think the LDS are "against" using other English translations, especially as they help flesh out our understanding of the context of the Bible. But the KJV is indisputably the "canonical" version, or the version that (in conjunction with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) we look to to establish doctrine.

Ok so I just heard that the King James Version is the most incorrectly translated bible there is? what on earth is going on?

The KJV is somewhat problematic--it's actually a patchwork of earlier translations based on source texts that, in the intervening years, have become somewhat obselete as older texts have come to light. But to say it's the most "incorrect" version of the Bible is, I think, just silly. The KJV was produced by men who actually believed Moses was a historical figure and that Jesus was the Son of God. That's more than can be said for a several Biblical translations in circulation today.

[JohnnyRudick]

I've often wondered what Mormons do about the Bible in non English-speaking countries. If independent non-English translations are allowed, why are the LDS so against using other English translations (RSV, NIV, Good News etc.)? Biblical scholarship has moved on since 1611. Many older and more reliable manuscripts have come to light since then, and these have been available to the more recent translators.

(Of course you may take the view that the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus contain Satanic alterations, and though older are less reliable than the MSS available in 1611, but I've never heard any Mormon say this.)

I am a Mormon speaking for myself and not the Church.

"Can We Trust the Bible" type subjects have been touched on from time to time and again I answer for me, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)I do not answer for the Church.

I believe in the English language the KJB is the most accurate translation available and that is why God has seen fit to lay out history in a way that is the Bible we have incorporated into our Scriptures.

The "more accurate manuscripts" that keep getting thrown in our faces is a scam.

There are not more accurate manuscripts available other then those that match up with the old Sianaticus codex manuscripts used many times to confuse the people of the world.

I believe all of us believe the Bible also to be the word of God but not many of us understand that there are two main lines of descent of what most today call the Bible.

It is not any one "Mormon" who believes that there are "Satanic" alterations in the Bible but the Scriptures do indicate it in many different places.

The Book of Mormon reveals to us;

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve

apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest

the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most

abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken

away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and

most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they

taken away.

1 Nephi 13:27 And all this have they done that they might pervert

the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and

harden the hearts of the children of men.

Isaiah was given a revelation that he wrote down for us;

Isaiah 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit

of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your

rulers, the seers hath he covered.

God told us through Amos the prophet;

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I

will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a

thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the

north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the

word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

This was done by many who believed in keeping men in the dark concerning the words of God.

The church through the centuries had to hide in the hills and mountains of Turkey, Greece and Italy and even France from those who would burn their churches, Scriptures and even the Christians themselves.

They did not like the people to possess the Scriptures.

When the people had the words of God they would have their own churches and would not give allegiance to those in power but to God.

They did not like the way the words of God were written and rewrote His words in many critical places to suit their own desires.

I am of the position that the world has enough help in bashing the standard works of the Church and they don't need any help from us.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture we can clear up any perceived glitch in the Scripture and that includes the KJBible.

The King James Bible translated from the Textus Receptus, that great Greek text that has it's roots in Antioch, Syria where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26) and where the Gospel of Matthew was most likely written.

Other versions of the TR other then the King James were also written like the German Bible, The Great Bible, Tyndale's New Testament etc.

These Bibles have stood through out history on their own against the other line of bibles from the Hexapla, concocted at first in the early 200's A.D. and Origen's LXX through Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) down to the Reams bible out of France (1582 A.D.) Satan's answer to the TR translations.

The armies of Darkness have in the past used the Roman/Egyptian church to keep the people in darkness and under their thumb.

As the years move on and this combination gains power in other instruments of persuasion and they are used as well.

Some in the Church in the past and the present are used to cast doubt on the Bible.

The one Standard work of the Church that has been widely accepted by the masses from the time they have been dispensed to the people through the TR.

God preserved this line to show up the Corruption of the Bible correctors and they have cranked up the war on it since the 1500s.

The war on the Antioch, Syrian texts have been from the beginning with Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius, Jerome and other Bible correctors to this day

Bro. Rudick

[Maya]

I think in Finland we just need to use waht ever we have since we have no scolastic LDS who could translate themselves not even from English.

I know there ahs been a lot of changes in teh new Bible in Finnish, but when lacking the overwiev LDS gives no matter how hard they try, they make mistakes, especialy against us. I think they even change words so that at lestone new translation did not wnymore have a wrod from wich it was easier to understand that God has a body in to something that means he is a spirit. Maybe it was not excactly that but something alike. They are now translateing new excangeing words to satisfy their needs in order to "clarify" Gods word. I just happened to be in Finland in a sundayschool where I noticed this about the new translation, I was shoked.

I believe that KJV was at least in JS time the most correct translation and since the new translations are done with more or less negative attitude thowards LDS I dont believe any of them is any better. The meaning of words change throughout the years and if a person who strongly believes that God is a spirit translates he uses words that hint that direction and if there is a tarnslator who believes he has a body he uses words hinting that way and if ther is somne one who dont care or dont know they throw in words without care ... or ... after what their friends ask them to or even who pays most... that is called the human view.

Anyone know about the changes that the Dead Sea Scrolls made?

[FunkyTown]

Ok so I just heard that the King James Version is the most incorrectly translated bible there is? what on earth is going on?

That would be the Jehovah's Witnesses telling you that.

See what I did right there? That was an ad hominem attack. I was basically dismissing someone's opinion based upon their belief system, rather than debating it.

Ultimately, I would invite people to look in to their own biblical scholarship to determine the correct/incorrect translation that they believe in. My favourite scholar is a guy named Richard Elliot Friedman, the head of Jewish Studies at NYU. He talks to me in a way I understand.

[JohnnyRudick]

Anyone know about the changes that the Dead Sea Scrolls made?

I know of no changes in the test of the KJB as a result of the DSC but I do understand that the New KJ Version of the Bible has been modified even more in the direction of the Codex Vaticanus type texts.

These changes in the New King James and the other bibles were in the Old Testament mostly as there are no Dead Sea Scrolls that have to do with the New Testament but the influence is used as an excuse to make more changes.

Remember. Satan's goal is to confuse the texts. Not make it more clearer.

Just add more fuel to the argument that "you can prove anything using the bible".

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 13, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)