KJV verses modern English Bibles

[mnn727]

Ok, so I am in EQ last Sunday and I really can’t believe what I am hearing. Now we have a large EQ (38 attending last week) and they are very vocal and enjoy participating in class. Also most of our EQ are RM’s that were born in the Church and have never done more than a visit to any other Church and usually not even that. Also they have always read the KJV version of the Bible. But during the clesson on Scripture they are really cutting down any other versions of the Bible (modern English versions) and I don’t mean just “as far as they are translated correctly” I mean trashing as in “they’re all garbage and they twist EVERYTHING “ (that exact statement was made by a class member)

Are we not guilty of the same thing we accuse the Protestants of and that is condemning something without even giving it a chance first?

I know it’s a pet peeve of mine, but I prefer not to set up a language roadblock to people who are not familiar with 16th century or 18th century English (like potential converts) or (like me) just don’t like trying to translate it into understandable language.

Are there some differences in meaning? Yeah, but no more than the KJV has naturally that the footnotes to the JST have corrected

I don’t find the KJV either poetic or respectful, I just find it archaic and past its usable time – time to put it to rest IMHO. I regularly read TNIV and with a few footnotes (again to the JST) it could be a good replacement.

Thoughts?

[prisonchaplain]

The modern English translations, as a rule of thumb, are at least slightly closer to the original manuscripts. Their translators had the advantage of modern archeological finds of much older Greek and Hebrew copies--dating back into the early 100s. Most of those used by the KJV translators were from the Middle Ages. Basic doctrine in historiography is that the closer the manuscript is to the time of the actual writing the more accurate it is likely to be.

BTW, the TNIV is a great translation, but one that ultimately did not gain the popularity of the NIV. It uses gender-nuetral pronouns whenever the original text allows for it. This approach falls in line with academic writing, and also with general publishing standards today. However, it got portrayed as being politically correct, so never gained a strong readership. Good for me though--I just got a carton for the jail at a very good price. :-)

[beefche]

Personally, I don't care what version members use for their personal use. The church as it stands uses the KJV and so I do think it is important to use that when teaching at church.

What would bug me more, though, is the apparent self-righteous judging and accusations happening in a church class. As a member of that class, I would have tried to steer the conversation to a more appropriate topic or if that didn't work, then let them know that church bashing is not appropriate and that we should focus on the manual and Gospel. As yes, I'm saying that even if I had no authority in that class....as a member and participant, I expect the doctrines and principles of the church to be evident.

[Hemidakota]

Ok, so I am in EQ last Sunday and I really can’t believe what I am hearing. Now we have a large EQ (38 attending last week) and they are very vocal and enjoy participating in class. Also most of our EQ are RM’s that were born in the Church and have never done more than a visit to any other Church and usually not even that. Also they have always read the KJV version of the Bible. But during the clesson on Scripture they are really cutting down any other versions of the Bible (modern English versions) and I don’t mean just “as far as they are translated correctly” I mean trashing as in “they’re all garbage and they twist EVERYTHING “ (that exact statement was made by a class member)

Are we not guilty of the same thing we accuse the Protestants of and that is condemning something without even giving it a chance first?

I know it’s a pet peeve of mine, but I prefer not to set up a language roadblock to people who are not familiar with 16th century or 18th century English (like potential converts) or (like me) just don’t like trying to translate it into understandable language.

Are there some differences in meaning? Yeah, but no more than the KJV has naturally that the footnotes to the JST have corrected

I don’t find the KJV either poetic or respectful, I just find it archaic and past its usable time – time to put it to rest IMHO. I regularly read TNIV and with a few footnotes (again to the JST) it could be a good replacement.

Thoughts?

Curious here, was it presented to the Elders Q. that Joseph Smith used the German version for making corrections to the bible? The reason according Joseph Smith, it was more accurate than the KJV during his time.

[Justice]

The problem is that when another version is made it is (it must be) based on the understanding of the individual(s) translating. The KJV has errors in it. Joseph Smith pointed some of them out, and the Book of Mormon points some of them out. But, when a group of people, no matter how smart they are, get together to decide what the Bible really means, it must be based on their understanding.

With modern discoveries and more in-depth study of the past, parts of new translations can be made more accurate. But, in some instances modern beliefs are "read into" the text and they are altered more to side with a particular belief. For instance, the Trinity or rapture can be read a little more clearly in some modern translations.

So, even with good intentions, the translators of a new Bible can mislead their readers.

[mnn727]

So, even with good intentions, the translators of a new Bible can mislead their readers.

You're right, they can and do, but no more so than the KJV translators did which is why we have footnotes gto the JST on a number of verses - my point in the same could be done on any version - so that really in my opinion wipes out the typical arguments for using such an archaic version of the Bible.

[Justice]

Yes, could be. But, has not been.

Right now I believe we should stay with the KJV and use the JST as a suppliment, and use the Book of Mormon to understand the things that are mentioned in it.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, for some time I've wondered if one reason that your church uses the KJV with notes is because it's one of the few major translations that is public domain. In other words, the International Bible Society (owners of the NIV copyright) may not allow you to publish a version with JST notes. Likewise, the American Bible Society might not let you do so with the Contemporary English Version. In my five years here no one has ever indicated with certainty that the KJV is the version the church publishes due to any qualitative superiority of the translation.

[mnn727]

Right now I believe we should stay with the KJV .

But why? tradition? cause thats the only reason I can see. Unless its the copyright that PC brings up, in that case I think we should print our own.

[Moksha]

As far as being mormony, the Message Bible seems to support what we say the best. As far as being accurate, later translations are better.

However, they lack the KJV material from Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon.

In any case, it seems real goofy for us to be cutting down other Bibles. Do they not understand they contain the same story? My guess is these disparaging remarks come from some handed down snootiness masking a sense of inferiority. Rx - get over that inferiority already. Try some chicken soup.

:)

[prisonchaplain]

Just for fun, here's a site that opposes KJV-onlyism. For the uninitiated, there are some Christian fundamentalists who believe the KJV is the only translation for English speaking peoples, and that it is infallible word-for-word. The point of the quiz is to raise doubts on this view through the asking of historical and factual questions. See what you think:

Test Your Knowledge of the King James Version

As FYI, I found nothing anti-LDS at the site, but did not go looking at hyperlinks. If anyone finds anything offensive, let me know, and I'll immediately remove the link.

[bl8tant]

This has been a hot button of mine lately. I really, really like the New Living Translation (NLT). I have learned a great deal about the gospel from studying it. Though I appreciate the majesty of the KJV's language, it seems pretty clear that the KJV is not the most accurate translation. That in turn makes me wonder why we're still using it; the Church could certainly afford to perform its own translation, or even to choose another more accurate one for us to use.

[Obolus]

Any thoughts on the JST published by the former Reorganized church? I've considered obtaining one over the years because I'm bugged about having to bounce around between footnotes and whatnot.

[pam]

Here's what I found at lds.org.

Franklin S. Gonzalez, institute teacher, Institute of Religion adjacent to the University of Utah. When the Church was organized in 1830, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version, was the translation predominantly used in the English-speaking world. Latter-day Saints relied on it in their meetings, and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price were written in a style of language similar to that in the KJV.

Joseph Smith also used an 1828 edition of the KJV to prepare an inspired version of the Bible. President J. Reuben Clark lists the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) as one reason the Church uses the KJV:

“For our Church membership, the Authorized Version is to be followed in preference to others because the Inspired Version by the Prophet Joseph Smith [the Joseph Smith Translation] agrees with the Authorized Version in those essential particulars where other versions vary.” (Why the King James Version? Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1956, pp. 60–61.)

Early Church leaders were partial to the KJV not only because they had grown up with it, but also because the KJV was couched in language unparalleled for its literary beauty. Madeleine and J. Lane Miller write about the KJV:

“Its O. T. far surpassed any English translation in its faithfulness to the Hebrew text and the simplicity of its style. Its N. T. is so expressive in language and form that it is said to rival the original Greek as literature. Its majestic, direct, forceful prose has never been surpassed in English literature.” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 8th ed., New York: Harper & Row, 1973, p. 165.)

The Prophet learned early in his ministry that the original biblical texts had been corrupted at an early date. (See 1 Ne. 13:25–29.) Hence, all translators would have difficulty producing an accurate Bible whether they used the twelfth- to fourteenth-century manuscripts available to the KJV translators or used earlier manuscripts. Weaknesses in modern Bible versions are more often the result of faulty Hebrew and Greek texts than of logical misconceptions and renditions.

[urloony]

Here's what I found at lds.org...

I've read that before on other sites regarding our exclusive use of the KJV. Honestly I think it is a cultural tradition that is sneaking it's way into becoming doctrine or at the least policy in the minds of members. I am a big fan of Logos Bible software which I use regularly for my study to take advantage of every English translation available. The focus and beauty of this software however is it's ability to provide users with original language. If Joseph were alive today, I think his NT would be a NA27. We need to get real here. The bottom line is your typical EQ member knows absolutely nothing about how translations are made, let alone anything about original language, and is towing the party line if you will. We need more members to take a look at learning Greek and Hebrew or at least using an interlinear Bible to study scripture with. Debating which English translation to use in this day and age is a moot point, when original languages is so accessible. Edited June 15, 2010 by urloony

[Hemidakota]

Adding to Pam's posting;

The Inspired Version by the Prophet Joseph Smith

Summary. The Prophet Joseph Smith began, but, it seems, never completed an Inspired Version of the Bible. It perhaps might be appropriately termed a recension. It followed the King James Version in most matters, though containing an entirely new version of the opening chapters of Genesis. There was also considerable change in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew.

Following the versions in a chronological order, another version should be mentioned here,—the Inspired Version by the Prophet Joseph Smith. This is not a translation in the usual sense (so far as our records show) although what purports to be a printing of the version is so titled. In fact, this version, if it had been a translation from Greek or other manuscripts, would have been rather a recension than a version, because it is founded upon, indeed is an amended Authorized Version. Except in the opening chapters of Genesis, it follows closely the Authorized Version text, the alterations made here and there in the Authorized Version text being seemingly for purposes of clarification, largely of doctrinal problems, or of additions to the same purpose.

Perhaps the most extensive change made in any other one place than in Genesis, occurs in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, where the subject matter has been so rearranged as more clearly to distinguish the two main themes of the discourse, the one, the signs preceding and the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other, the signs of the Second Coming.

The Genesis portion is designated (in the Pearl of Great Price) as the Book of Moses and covers the ground covered by and includes chapters 1 to 5 of Genesis and down through chapter 6, verse 13.

This Book of Moses, together with the Book of Abraham (a translation by the Prophet, of a papyrus), the revision of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and some other documents ("Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet"—now also printed separately under the title, Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story—and the Articles of Faith) are published (first edition, 1851) as The Pearl of Great Price.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never issued the Inspired Version of the whole Bible, since apparently the Prophet Joseph never finally finished his revision. (See DHC, Vol. I, pp. 215, 324.) However, the Reorganized Church has printed an edition of the Bible with a title page which recites: "The /Holy Scriptures/ Translated and Corrected/by the/ Spirit of Revelation/ by/ Joseph Smith, Jr./ The Seer."

So much of the revision as is covered by the Book of Moses and by the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew (as these are printed in the Pearl of Great Price) is accepted by the Latter-day Saints.

The Authorized Version so amended, the Pearl of Great Price (just described), the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, constitute the accepted Scriptures of the Church. To these Scriptures are added from time to time other revelations and inspired writings or utterances of the presiding authority of the Church.

The first recorded revelation received by the Prophet Joseph Smith in connection with this revision came sometime in 1830. The Prophet records preparing to "recommence" work on this revision ("translation" as he termed it) on September 12, 1831. (DHC, Vol. I, pp. 98, 215.)

An entry in his journal under date of February 2, 1833, affirms:

"I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion." (DHC, Vol. I, p. 324.)

It was the Prophet's intention to publish together the New Testament text and the Book of Mormon, apparently in Zion, but the persecutions of the Saints in Missouri and their drivings did not permit the accomplishment of this purpose. (DHC, Vol. I, p. 341. See for discussion and facts, DHC, Vol. I, pp. 132, 211, 215; B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Century I (Salt Lake City, Deseret News Press, 1930), Vol. I, pp. 238 ff., 247, 271; Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City, Deseret News Press, 1935), p. 138.) (Why the King James Version, by J. Reuben Clark, p.227-229)

Our copy of the KJV went through countless number of changes from mid 1500 until the latter 1700 time frame. Even in 1666 the Apocrypha was omitted, though previously omitted from some editions of other Bibles. The Nonconformists made objections to the Apocrypha. It was omitted from a 1782 edition in America. Note the attitude of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The books of the Apocrypha are named. The declaration of the Council of Trent thereon is given. The Prophet Joseph Smith's revelation and opinion on the Apocrypha are considered.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Traveler]

I personally like and prefer the KJV but I also maintain several versions in my personal library and I use them all in my personal studies. I believe it is very important to know and understand that the Bible scriptures come to us in our day and time in the form of several versions. The reason I prefer the KJV over other versions is because it is not updated to “modern” English. This is a constant reminder to me that the sacred Biblical scriptures are from another place in time, a whole other language and a very different culture. Even common sayings such as “the second mile” or “no man knows the hour or the day” meant something very different to the Jews of Jesus’ time living in Jerusalem and surrounding areas than what has become a doctrine in our day.

I also like many of the attitudes presented on this forum by Prison Chaplin. As a “Saint” I believe it is part of our covenant to study the sacred beliefs of others. Not always that we may convert them but because there are times that the unique input from other devout believer can assist us in clearer insights to important notions hidden in sacred scripture. I also believe a fear of other religions and their doctrine is not a doctrine of Christ. In the days of Jesus the most corrupt religion and interpretation of scripture among the Jews was the Samaritan religion – but Jesus clearly taught that the input and understanding of religious notions by devout Samaritans can, in many cases be superior to the Jewish experts (Levites and Priests) that were considered to have access to more accurate scripture and more pure doctrine.

It is unbecoming of a saint to denigrate any devout person’s religious choice or understanding of doctrine (Clearly stated in our Atricles of Faith). We can and always should, as directed by the spirit, teach and give witness to truths that have been made manifested to us and not degrade the belief of others. The spirit will then inspire us all in ways we could never inspire each other on our own – leading anyone to any truths they desire.

The Traveler

Edited June 15, 2010 by Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Thanks Traveler.

[Dravin]

Early Church leaders were partial to the KJV not only because they had grown up with it, but also because the KJV was couched in language unparalleled for its literary beauty

This, amongst other things, is part of why I like the KJV. Also it matches the prose and language in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price much better than something like the NIV (which I find jarring for that reason and that fact that after so much reinforcement any given Bible verse sounds 'wrong' if it isn't KJV). Note I'm not making a case of academic accuracy, just pure aesthetics and I'm aware that had the standard English Bible at the time not been the KJV but something like the NIV that 1 Nephi 3:7 may have sounded more like:

And I told my Father that I would go back to Jerusalem as the Lord commanded me because the Lord does not give impossible commands but makes a way for those he commands to succeed.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Adding to Pam's posting;

Our copy of the KJV went through countless number of changes from mid 1500 until the latter 17000 time frame.....

The KJV translation was started in 1604 and completed in 1611. I'm going to assume that 17000 is a typo. :)

M.

[Hemidakota]

The KJV translation was started in 1604 and completed in 1611. I'm going to assume that 17000 is a typo. :)

M.

Fixed...thanks for the correction. What led up to the KJV is why I added the 1500s to this edition. The following is history...

After several earlier English translations of this accepted Greek text,—Tindale's (1526), Coverdale's (1535), Matthew's (1537), Taverner's (1539), the Great Bible (1539-1541), the Geneva Bible (1557-1560), the Bishops' Bible (1568)—King James of England, that he might bring order and some kind of religious unity among his Protestant people, organized a committee to prepare an English version that might command the respect and support of the people. In 1611 this Committee submitted to King James an English translation of the generally accepted Greek text, the translation in no small part being based on some of the earlier English versions. This new translation met the general approval of the people and since that date has been known as the King James Version, or Authorized Version.

The Greek texts available to, and some at least used by the translators of the King James Version of 1611, were: that of Cardinal Ximenes — the Complutensian Polyglott (published in 1520); that of Erasmus (printed in 1516), begun after but published before the Complutensian; that of Robert Stephen (published in 1546 and 1549); and that of Beza (published in five editions, 1565 to 1598), which differed little from Stephen's. The Elzevirs — Bonaventure and Abraham — printers, brought out two editions, 1624 and 1633, made up of the texts of Stephen and Beza. All of these were Greek texts. The various English Bibles were based on one or more of these Greek texts, as they were available. ('Why the King James Version' by J. Reuben Clark, p.2)

[mnn727]

1 Nephi 3:7 (NIVized)

And I told my Father that I would go back to Jerusalem as the Lord commanded me because the Lord does not give impossible commands but makes a way for those he commands to succeed.

This would be wonderful, while the original verse is not terribly hard to understand, this makes it so much clearer to us in the 21st century.

[Dravin]

This would be wonderful, while the original verse is not terribly hard to understand, this makes it so much clearer to us in the 21st century.

Lacks poetry though. I mean that literally, any attempt I made at NIVing the Book of Mormon would slaughter the Chiasmus. I'm sure some BYU PhDs would have better luck though.

It's kinda hard for me to realize how tricky the language can be (Particularity for converts who use the NIV or something similar) as I've been steeped in the KJV English ever since people started quoting scripture at me and since I started reading scriptures myself. Of course I have a tendency not to use the simplest language in explaining myself so maybe there is a kindred spirit thing going on. For instance some people find Talmage's language in Jesus the Christ to be a barrier, I love it.

Maybe I'm just a masochist?

Edited June 15, 2010 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

Actually, there is a plain English version of the BoM available. It's obviously not official, though I doubt there's condemnation of it either. The Book of Mormon - plainBookofMormon.com

[Dravin]

Actually, there is a plain English version of the BoM available. It's obviously not official, though I doubt there's condemnation of it either. The Book of Mormon - plainBookofMormon.com

What do you know, a Book of Mormon targum (of sorts)! :)