LDS and KJV-onlyism

[curtishouse]

As I learn more about the church, it seems that the only Bible that the LDS church relies on is the KJV Bible and believes that all others are corrupted...If I'm wrong on any of this, please tell me.

Is there any proof of this? Also if you look in the KJV, there are certain verses that are inaccurate such as ones that use the word "unicorn" but, in later translations, changed the word to a more accurate meaning of oxen or something of that variant. Some verses on the usage of "unicorn" are Psalm 92:10, Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-10, etc.

Any help on the church's view of KJV-onlyism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry for this outsider view--but I've been here over four years, and think I know the answer. The church uses the KJV because it's the one the church publishes. From what I am told here, there is no official opposition to other translations, and several posters here use them in their studies.

[BenRaines]

That sounds pretty good PC. I have a Reina Valera that I have used for over 30 years. I it is a spanish copy of the Bible.

Perhaps it is easier to say, my opinion only, that we use the KJV since it is the one that has least been modified to please the politically correct crowd.

I know that there are many scholars who study all forms even going back to what they can find in Hebrew or Greek to try to get an original understanding what was meant by what has been written.

Being bi-lingual I can easily see how things can be interpreted differently from one language to another. Imagine several language translations.

Also to try to understand just by reading what God wished to communicate to his children falls short. It all requires confirmation of the Holy Ghost to know what God intended to say.

My opinion.

Ben Raines

[Wingnut]

Both PC and Ben made good points. I just wanted to add in that we don't think that other versions are "corrupt." In fact, if you use that world in a technological sense (e.g., "a corrupted file") then all versions are corrupt -- having been changed from the original. That's bound to happen with translation on top of translation. The KJV is -- I believe -- widely accepted as the most correct translation, though perhaps not the easiest to understand, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with other versions.

[NeuroTypical]

I personally use several resources:

Studylight: 29 online translations

Blueletter Bible: Great Greek/Hebrew resource.

Bible Gateway Another online version

LM

[tubaloth]

There really isn't much more to add to this.

We already believe there are miss-translations in the KJV of the bible. But being the one that is the more official Bible we use it.

So then why not use another version of the bible? That I feel leads to another question of who can translate the bible? Is this more scholarly or is a spiritual. I mean we can translate from one language to another, but that might miss the Doctrine or spiritual intent of the message.

So we stick with the KJV. Joseph Smith (I assume you know was a prophet of the LDS Church and the one that "translated" the book of mormon).

Joseph Smith went through the bible a number of times to correct some of these errors that had come in. Joseph Smiths translation was pretty completely spiritual. Joseph Smith never finished the translation before he died thus we use what he has, but use it as a guidance to understand the full meaning. Our Pearl of Great price has the first 6 chapters of Moses is really Joseph Smith's translation of the first chapters of Genesis.

So its with this added guidance that we use the KJV.

[curtishouse]

There really isn't much more to add to this.

We already believe there are miss-translations in the KJV of the bible. But being the one that is the more official Bible we use it.

So then why not use another version of the bible? That I feel leads to another question of who can translate the bible? Is this more scholarly or is a spiritual. I mean we can translate from one language to another, but that might miss the Doctrine or spiritual intent of the message.

So we stick with the KJV. Joseph Smith (I assume you know was a prophet of the LDS Church and the one that "translated" the book of mormon).

Joseph Smith went through the bible a number of times to correct some of these errors that had come in. Joseph Smiths translation was pretty completely spiritual. Joseph Smith never finished the translation before he died thus we use what he has, but use it as a guidance to understand the full meaning. Our Pearl of Great price has the first 6 chapters of Moses is really Joseph Smith's translation of the first chapters of Genesis.

So its with this added guidance that we use the KJV.

Well I guess the question must be asked did King James have the proper authority to translate the Bible then? If not, how could you trust the KJV?

[prisonchaplain]

There is another factor. KJV is probably about the only English translation that is public domain...freeing the church to publish it with LDS notes, etc.

[bytebear]

Well I guess the question must be asked did King James have the proper authority to translate the Bible then? If not, how could you trust the KJV?

Nobody had authority from God. That didn't come until the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith. But, there is an implication that God inspired King James to do the translation and that at least some of those who actually did the translation did it with inspiration from God. But no translation would be perfect unless completely directed by God through a prophet. That is why we need the Holy Ghost, to help us discern truth. Even if we had the original words from Peter or Paul, it would be no different than the words of Joseph Smith or Nephi. We still must determine what truth exists in those words for ourselves.

[Moksha]

Wonder if there is any concern over using another Bible that might not jive with some of the KJV text found in the Book of Mormon.

[mnn727]

Just try quoting from a non-KJV version in a class and you'll see what the members think about other versions (I did this once). As a convert I just don't get it, why do we put up language barriers to someone reading the Bible?

And don't get me wrong here, I was raised on the KJV so it wasn't a stranger to me when I joined th Church. I have always hated the fact that many people think the language is more respectful just because its old. The funny thing is when the KJV was created, it was to bring the Bible to the common people, now the common people find it anywhere from difficult to nearly impossible to understand. It's the one thing I truly dislike in the Church, that many members can't even conceive of using a different version, sadly I suspect that some of the most adament KJV people only open the Bible on Sundays during class.

We use the TNIV for daily study in our home but have 5 other version's available.

Edited November 29, 2009 by mnn727

[Moksha]

Mnn, I used the Message Bible to help add insight to individual passages, when we discussed them, in the New Testament year of the Gospel Doctrine class. It would not have been a pretty scene if I had read from it instead.

[prisonchaplain]

We use the TNIV for daily study in our home but have 5 other version's available.

The TNIV is probably my favorite all-around translation. It's the NIV, but with gender-inclusive pronouns whenever the original text allows for it. It's rather pleasant to read this version in chapel, especially for the females, and not have to read, "Bretheren..." and me of course, adding with a bit of humor "and SISTEREN." The TNIV takes away that clumsiness. On the other hand, the version has all but been squelched due to fears of political correctness and alleged "tampering with the original text."

[Nenad]

There is another factor. KJV is probably about the only English translation that is public domain...freeing the church to publish it with LDS notes, etc.

But surely the LDS Church has trained linguists and Biblical scholars who could produce the official Church version of the Bible in contemporary language. I think this goes deeper than copyright.

[The_Seeker]

Just try quoting from a non-KJV version in a class and you'll see what the members think about other versions (I did this once). As a convert I just don't get it, why do we put up language barriers to someone reading the Bible?

I suppose it might be different depending on which ward one attends, but I used to read from the NKJV in Sunday School, and no-one commented on it at all -- positive or negative.

[ozzy]

I use the KJV for a number of reasons.

I feel that it is the best (most original) English version. I understand that it has its own corruptions, but a version that is changed from it is likely to carry those corruptions as well as its own.

I remember back in my high school English classes the exercises we did of interpreting poetry. The bible is largely poetry, or at least holds many poetic forms. The newest versions of the bible are, in my mind, well intentioned attempts at making it more understandable through forms of literary interpretations. As well intentioned as these are, they are still only the interpretations of a man, and proof is that there are many ways to interpret different passages. Proof of that is found in the pure number of religions that form from separate interpretations. So anyway, until God interprets what he said through a Prophet, I am not comfortable trying to use a published interpretation. Obviously we must all interpret some things for ourselves, but we definitely can't set those forth as doctrine.

[Dravin]

But surely the LDS Church has trained linguists and Biblical scholars who could produce the official Church version of the Bible in contemporary language. I think this goes deeper than copyright.

Using the KJV establishes a degree of commonality. As a missionary I ran into quite a lot of people who used it, and even stated it was the 'correct' version. However that commonality would have been lost if we had our own completely from scratch (instead of our own footnotes) version. While there were those who used other than the KJV I still think they'd have a harder time accepting that not only do we have additional scripture but that we use our 'own' bible. Even if there was no substantial difference, the fact that it was translated 'in-house' would make it suspect.

Don't know if that is the reason, a reason, or irrelvant in the Church's discision but it makes a degree of sense to me.

[Flyonthewall]

Using the KJV establishes a degree of commonality. As a missionary I ran into quite a lot of people who used it, and even stated it was the 'correct' version. However that commonality would have been lost if we had our own completely from scratch (instead of our own footnotes) version. While there were those who used other than the KJV I still think they'd have a harder time accepting that not only do we have additional scripture but that we use our 'own' bible. Even if there was no substantial difference, the fact that it was translated 'in-house' would make it suspect.

Don't know if that is the reason, a reason, or irrelvant in the Church's discision but it makes a degree of sense to me.

I think that while the church was predominately english speaking this had a lot to do with it.

As the church has moved towards being a worldwide church, obviously the KJV is not used in the non-english speaking countries.

[Dravin]

I think that while the church was predominately english speaking this had a lot to do with it.

Nope but the whole 'we wrote our own bible' aspect still applies. While the church translates the Book of Mormon into other languages my understanding is that the Church uses extant bible translations in other countries. So whether it is the KJV or the Spanish equivalent it doesn't change that aspect much (Wanting to avoid the appearance of having speciffically taylored a bible to our favor).

Or are you talking about archaic translation vs. common language versions (obviously both types of translations exsist in multiple languages) and tendencies towards the archaic translations to be prefered? My understanding is that the formal/archaic Spanish bible(s?) used are a more difficult gap than that between the NIV and KJV. Anyway, back to the point, I can see how the english selection of the KJV could have led to an archaic = good perception that has influenced other languages.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Dravin

[rayhale]

Having one ‘official’ version of the Bible makes sense. The KJV is not perfect, there are ‘better’ translations out there, but our church has said that the KJV is the one that the Church will go by. There are several internet websites, and computer software that I use:

www.gospelink.com This site is owned by Deseret Book, it has hundreds of books by LDS authors. It is a subscription site though.

www.logos.com This is a site where you can buy, perhaps the most expansive software to study the Bible, it has several levels of the software ranging from home study to Preacher/Pastor level.

www.swordsearcher.com This site is where you can buy an inexpensive software of Bible study, it has several different Bible translations, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries. I personally love this software, you get a lot, for very little amount.

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/ This is the free online version of the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, a great resource to see what the Catholics feel about certain subjects.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp This free website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia which was originally published between 1901-1906.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm This site has the complete Jewish Bible with Rashi commentary (a famous Jewish commentator).

http://www.biblestudytools.com/ As the site name says, this is a mega-site, with links to other web sites, has Bible study tools, Pastor resources, and other info.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ The largest freely available archive of online books about religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric on the Internet. The site is dedicated to religious tolerance and scholarship.

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm This free site contains the ‘Inspired Version’ of the Bible, better known as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

　

[Hemidakota]

Germanic Bible is more accurate than the King James. This is the bible that Joseph used to review and made correction on the translation mistakes made by the clergy.