KJV verses modern English Bibles

[Moksha]

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

Cutting back on "It can to pass..." does cause an abbreviation (of sorts).

[LocalFarms]

The main argument I can think against using modern english is that modern english has lost a few words like the plural you. Except maybe in the south where they say y'all.

[Dravin]

The main argument I can think against using modern english is that modern english has lost a few words like the plural you. Except maybe in the south where they say y'all.

Interestingly you/ye was the plural, and thou, which was lost from Modern English for the most part, was the singular. So back in the day it would have been:

Thou art a man.

And:

Ye/You are men.

[Hemidakota]

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

Unless it is written by a Seer, it is not even worth open the link.

[Dravin]

Unless it is written by a Seer, it is not even worth open the link.

I understand the sentiment but unless I'm mistaken non-English translations aren't done (with a few notable exceptions) by the Apostles or the Prophet and I doubt any of them read Cambodian. That said there is most likely a confirmation process, whether it be via prayer or academically.

The link to is essentially a paraphrase so I doubt there is anything pernicious in it but as with any translation (even one language to another) there is undoubtedly lost nuance. So I won't be trading out my BoM any time soon. Even if there was an official Modern Translation I'm told set in my ways to ditch the current version (baring counsel to switch). :)

[Hemidakota]

I was referring to Prison's modern english translation of the Book of Mormon and not foreign variations of the book.

In a couple of decades, I expect the church will receive a fuller account written by the original authors of the Book of Mormon, but will have access to all the civic, Jaredites, Lamanites, and other records; upon entering the millennium era. I have enough patience in waiting for a fuller account than be concerned over trivial translation.

[Dravin]

I was referring to Prison's modern english translation of the Book of Mormon and not foreign variations of the book.

I know, I was just pointing out that most of the Non-English translations don't meet the qualifications of having been written by a Seer. So unless you discard those books as worthless then it isn't the lack of Seer translation you object to so much as the lack of having been officially vetted.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Dravin

[mnn727]

Unless it is written by a Seer, it is not even worth open the link.

which is where you are wrong IMHO, its an interesting read and opens minds to what could be done -- not to pick on you personally but there are way too many attitudes like the above statement in the Church, it reminds me of the song "Tradition" in Fiddler on the Roof. I think Tradition is the reason for many things in the Church.

there is no reason for not having a modern English translation -- other languages have them already, any clairifications needed could be done via footnotes EXACTLY like is already done in the KJV version, and there is no reason why the same process used to translate the scriptures into other languages couldn't be used to translate them into modern English. Eventually it will have to be done - I vote for sooner rather than later.

Edited June 16, 2010 by mnn727

[mordorbund]

The main argument I can think against using modern english is that modern english has lost a few words like the plural you. Except maybe in the south where they say y'all.

Actually, "y'all" can be singular and "all y'all" plural.

(I know technically "y'all" is a contraction of "you all", but in practice it does get used in the singular as well.)

[Justice]

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.

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.

Because Joseph Smith corrected some of the wrong or deficient translations in it through revelation. He did not do so with the NIV.

So, if we read the KJV, use the JST footnotes that fixes wrong portions or adds deleted portions, and then use the portions of the Book of Mormon that more fully explains the doctrine, we have a very good starting point for anyone who wants to understand the more difficult passages in the Bible.

Since Joseph Smith did not correct errors in any other edition, we would have to compare the text of that particular translation to the KJV and the JST to see if it agrees, and if it doesn't we're back where we started. So, why go through all the hassle?

Just read the KJV with JST corrections and additions, and the portions of the Book of Mormon where the doctrine is expounded. It just makes sense. Maybe it makes too much sense. I know we try to overcomplicate things at times. :)

Edited June 17, 2010 by Justice

[urloony]

Because Joseph Smith corrected some of the wrong or deficient translations in it through revelation. He did not do so with the NIV.

Whether JS used the KJV or the NIV is arbitrary. He used the English translation on hand.

Since Joseph Smith did not correct errors in any other addition, we would have to compare the text of that particular translation to the KJV and the JST to see if it agrees, and if it doesn't we're back where we started. So, why go through all the hassle?

This is the epitome of the confusion regarding the JST. People often assume JS was correcting the KJV. He was not. He was correcting the “Bible” in general. Using the KJV as some sort of baseline for the accuracy of other translations is arbitrary since any modern translation is limited to the manuscripts and fragments that we have and not to autographs. That means that the NIV, ESV, NA27 NASB, etc. are bound to a handful of fragments from 150AD and a few manuscripts from 300-350AD.

This is the primary reason critics believe the JST is a fraud because it does not match any of the fragments and manuscripts we have. That however is not our claim. The claim is not that he restored the Bible from manuscripts 300 years removed from the source, but that JS restored the original autographs. This puts the JST into a unique category incomparable to any of the manuscripts we now have, ultimately demonstrating that comparison of the JST to extant Greek manuscripts is fruitless because we are comparing apples to oranges.

[Moksha]

Unless it is written by a Seer, it is not even worth open the link.

Are you excluding the possibility that a Plain English stone was used?

:)

[Snow]

Whether JS used the KJV or the NIV is arbitrary. He used the English translation on hand.

This is the epitome of the confusion regarding the JST. People often assume JS was correcting the KJV. He was not. He was correcting the “Bible” in general. Using the KJV as some sort of baseline for the accuracy of other translations is arbitrary since any modern translation is limited to the manuscripts and fragments that we have and not to autographs. That means that the NIV, ESV, NA27 NASB, etc. are bound to a handful of fragments from 150AD and a few manuscripts from 300-350AD.

This is the primary reason critics believe the JST is a fraud because it does not match any of the fragments and manuscripts we have. That however is not our claim. The claim is not that he restored the Bible from manuscripts 300 years removed from the source, but that JS restored the original autographs. This puts the JST into a unique category incomparable to any of the manuscripts we now have, ultimately demonstrating that comparison of the JST to extant Greek manuscripts is fruitless because we are comparing apples to oranges.

If one wants to claim that JS "corrected" the Bible to what it ought to say - fine. It's quite another thing, and a problematic thing to say that he corrected it to the original autograph manuscripts.

[urloony]

If one wants to claim that JS "corrected" the Bible to what it ought to say - fine. It's quite another thing, and a problematic thing to say that he corrected it to the original autograph manuscripts.

Why is one more problematic than the other? Any claim of divine revelation is going to be problematic. What the Bible "ought to say" and original autographs are one in the same. If we are going to believe God inspired JS to "re-translate" the Bible wouldn't the original autographs be an obvious source in such a scenario?

[martybess]

We are counseled to use words like "thou art" and "we thank thee oh father" and I feel that if were asked to address HF in prayer this way there's a reason for it in the KJV and we should stick to it. Though reading the other versions aren't a bad thing as long as one does not come to favor them over the KJV but I feel funny when I even pick on up LOL. In my mind this is a slippery slop to get on and I go with my gut feelings as much and I can.

[urloony]

We are counseled to use words like "thou art" and "we thank thee oh father" and I feel that if were asked to address HF in prayer this way there's a reason for it in the KJV and we should stick to it. Though reading the other versions aren't a bad thing as long as one does not come to favor them over the KJV but I feel funny when I even pick on up LOL. In my mind this is a slippery slop to get on and I go with my gut feelings as much and I can.

I think the bigger problem for TBM's is this concept that all other translations besides the KJV are somehow lesser or corrupt translations. That is a far more slippery slope imo. Don't let tradition become doctrine.

[prisonchaplain]

We are counseled to use words like "thou art" and "we thank thee oh father" and I feel that if were asked to address HF in prayer this way there's a reason for it in the KJV and we should stick to it.

Is this really true? Are you taught to "pray in King James?" Growing up, I remember that some of the older folk in church used to do that with their public prayers. However, I reckon that is because they were seeped in the King James Bible, and so some of the wording from God's word would naturally enter into their prayers. Growing up, as our teachers taught us to pray, they actually instructed us NOT to get stuck with formalized verbage. We should open up to God, and speak from our hearts, and not feel like God was far from us, requiring flowery language. So, I ask...were you actually taught to pray that way, or was it a habit picked up by listening to others?

[Dravin]

Why is one more problematic than the other? Any claim of divine revelation is going to be problematic. What the Bible "ought to say" and original autographs are one in the same. If we are going to believe God inspired JS to "re-translate" the Bible wouldn't the original autographs be an obvious source in such a scenario?

Joseph Smith did not simply restore text that may have once been contained in the various books of the Bible. There are several types of changes made in the JST (Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible):

1. Restoration of original text. Because Nephi tells us that "many plain and precious things" would be "taken away" from the Bible (1 Ne. 13:28), we can be certain that the JST includes the restoration of content that was once in original manuscripts. To Moses, the Lord foretold the removal of material from his record and its restoration in the latter days: "Thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. And in the day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe" (Moses 1:40-41). Joseph Smith was the man like Moses whom the Lord raised up to restore the lost words written by Moses, as well as lost material from the words of other Bible writers. But Joseph Smith did not restore the very words of lost texts, because they were in Hebrew or Greek (or other ancient languages), and the new Translation was to be in English. Thus his translation, in the English idiom of his own day, would restore the meaning and the message of original passages but not necessarily the literary trappings that accompanied them when they were first put to writing. This is one reason why the work can be called a translation

This would be what you are talking about, restoring excised or corrupted portions of the manuscript (translated into English).

2. Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible. Joseph Smith stated, "From what we can draw form the scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven we are induced to think, that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we have not."25 Perhaps the JST includes teachings or events in the ministries of prophets, apostles, or Jesus Himself that were never recorded anciently. The JST may include material of which the biblical writers were unaware or which they chose not to include or neglected to record (cf. 3 Ne. 23:6-13).

This idea would be contrary to what the Bible ought to say (according to JST) and what it did originally say being identical. Or I suppose one could argue that Joseph Smith made changes that were not limited to what the Bible ought to say but when above and beyond that.

3. Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers. Many of the individual JST changes fall into this category. There are numerous instances in which the Prophet rearranged word order to make a text read more easily or modernized its language. Examples of modernization of language would include the many changes from wot to know,26 from an to a before words that begin with h, from saith to said, from that and which to who, and from ye and thee to you.27 In some instance, Joseph Smith added short expansions to make the text less ambiguous. For example, there are several places where the word he is replaced by a personal name, thus making the meaning more clear, as in Genesis 14:20 (KJV "And he gave" = JST "And Abram gave") and in Genesis 18:32 (KJV "And he said. . . . And he said" = JST "And Abraham said. . . . And the Lord said").

These examples are merely word choices and usually have no bearing on how the original text is to be interpreted. But other modernizations may have a more significant aim. Some could be called cultural translations-the conversion of aspects of ancient culture unto modern counterparts to make them communicate better to modern readers. An example might include 1 Thessalonians 5:26, in which "Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss" is changed to "Greet all the brethren with a holy salutation" (see also Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12). It is likely that the King James text here accurately represents Paul's original word and intent. Yet to modern Western readers, unaccustomed to Mediterranean displays of friendship and brotherhood, Paul's word might miscommunicate and misdirect, and thus the Prophet made a change.28

This would represent an intentional steering away from the original autographs if kiss is indeed what they contained but Joseph Smith changed it to salutation.

4. Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible. Joseph Smith said, "[There are] many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me."29 Where there were inaccuracies in the Bible, regardless of their source, it was well within the scope of the Prophet's calling to change what needed to be changed. Where modern revelation had given a clearer view of a doctrine preserved less adequately in the Bible, it was appropriate for Joseph Smith to add a correction-whether or not that correction reflects what was on the ancient original manuscript. And where a passage was inconsistent with information elsewhere in the Bible itself, a change needed to be made.

Three examples may illustrate this kind of change: (a) The Gospel of John records the statement, "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:18), which contradicts the experience of Joseph Smith (JS-H 1:17-20) as well as biblical examples of prophets seeing God (e.g., Ex. 24:9-11; 33:11; Num. 12:6-8; Isa. 6:1; Amos 9:1). The JST change at John 1:18 clarifies the text. (b) The Gospel of Matthew contains what appears to be a misunderstanding of the donkey used in Jesus' triumphal entry (Matt. 21:2-3, 7). The JST revises the text to agree with the clearer accounts in Mark, Luke, and John. © Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:16-19 contain conflicting information about Judas' death. The JST revises Matthew to harmonize the two accounts. It is possible that in examples like b and c the Bible preserves accurately what the original authors wrote, based on misunderstanding, incomplete recollection, or the imperfection of writing. Joseph Smith was called to provide a more accurate translation, and responding to divine inspiration, he made the necessary changes even if they corrected the words of ancient writers.

I find the last part of greatest note. If Matthew was mistaken and what he did pen was incorrect then correcting him to create congruity is most definitely not restoring what the original text said. Look at it this way, if I wrote a book and incorrectly stated my birthday (Brain fart, typo or what have you, and yes I've "typoed" when writing by hand) or only stated it as February and then later somebody translating it into French notices this and changes it it to be the correct/full date while more accurate, and congruent with truth it is ultimately a move away from the original autograph.

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors. Perhaps there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author's original words, or even to remove them from their original context, to reveal teachings needed by the latter-day Church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Bible and the JST, said "both of them are true." He stated that John 1 in the Bible "is true," yet the JST gives it "an entirely new perspective." "These are illustrations of the fact that there can be two translations of the same thing and both of them can be true."30 There is an important JST change at Romans 13 in which Paul's teaching regarding the Saints' submission to secular political power is changed to submission to the authorities of the Church. Perhaps both versions are correct. If the Bible preserves accurately Paul's original thoughts and intent, then the JST revision would be viewed as a latter-day revelation intended to instruct us on a topic not anticipated by Paul.31

This also goes against the idea that JST = original manuscript.

By the way, I highly recommend anyone reading this take a look at the link I provided and not just limit themselves to the portions quoted, it is very interesting and informative.

[Hemidakota]

PC, to answer that question concerning the manner of language for prayer, LDS members are taught to use, reciting Apostle Darrin H. Oaks, May 1993 Ensign magazine;

Perhaps some who are listening to this sermon in English are already saying, “But this is unfamiliar and difficult. Why should we have to use words that have not been in common use in the English language for hundreds of years? If we require a special language of prayer in English, we will discourage the saying of prayers by little children, by new members, and by others who are just learning to pray.”

Brothers and sisters, the special language of prayer is much more than an artifact of the translation of the scriptures into English. Its use serves an important, current purpose. We know this because of modern revelations and because of the teachings and examples of modern prophets. The way we pray is important.

The English words thee, thou, thy, and thine occur throughout the prayers the prophets of the Lord have revealed for use in our day.

A revelation given in 1830, the year the Church was organized, directs that the elder or priest who administers the sacrament “shall kneel … and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:76–77, 79.)

The prayer offered at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836 is another model that illustrates the language of prayer used by the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“And now, Holy Father, we ask thee to assist us, thy people, with thy grace, in calling our solemn assembly, …

“That thy glory may rest down upon thy people, and upon this thy house, which we now dedicate to thee, that it may be sanctified and consecrated to be holy, and that thy holy presence may be continually in this house.” (D&C 109:10, 12.)

This prophetic model of the language of prayer has been faithfully followed in all of the sacred petitions by which the prophets have dedicated temples to the Lord. Exactly one hundred years ago this week, at a spot not far from where I stand, President Wilford Woodruff began the dedicatory prayer of the Salt Lake Temple with these words:

“Our Father in heaven, thou who hast created the heavens and the earth, and all things that are therein; thou most glorious One, … we, thy children, come this day before thee, and in this house which we have built to thy most holy name, humbly plead the atoning blood of thine Only Begotten Son, that our sins may be remembered no more against us forever, but that our prayers may ascend unto thee and have free access to thy throne, that we may be heard in thy holy habitation.” (As quoted by Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Mar. 1993, p. 2.)

When the Prophet Joseph Smith was imprisoned in the jail at Liberty, Missouri, he wrote an inspired prayer, which we now read in the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants. Note the special language the Prophet used in addressing our Father in Heaven:

“O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place? …

“Remember thy suffering saints, O our God; and thy servants will rejoice in thy name forever.” (D&C 121:1, 6)

Other prayers offered by the Prophet Joseph Smith also use the special, formal language of prayer. (See The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, ed. Dean C. Jessee Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984, pp. 283–84, 536–37.)

To cite more recent examples, we are all aware that the prayers offered at these general conferences of the Church always use the special language of prayer we have learned from the examples of modern prophets and teachers.

We are also guided by the special language we read in the prayers recorded in the King James Translation of the Bible and in the Book of Mormon.

We have scriptural record of three beautiful translated prayers the Savior offered during his earthly ministry. They are models for all of us. Notable in each of these prayers are the words thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours.

In teaching his disciples what we call the Lord’s Prayer, the Savior said, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” (Matt. 6:9; see also 3 Ne. 13:9.)

In his great intercessory prayer, uttered on the night before his crucifixion, the Savior used these words:

“Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. …

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1, 3.)

The Book of Mormon records this prayer the Savior offered during his visit to the righteous remnant of Israel on the American continent following his resurrection:

“Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen. …

“Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.” (3 Ne. 19:20–21.)

The special language of prayer that Latter-day Saints use in English has sometimes been explained by reference to the history of the English language. It has been suggested that thee, thou, thy, and thine are simply holdovers from forms of address once used to signify respect for persons of higher rank. But more careful scholarship shows that the words we now use in the language of prayer were once commonly used by persons of rank in addressing persons of inferior position. These same English words were also used in communications between persons in an intimate relationship. There are many instances where usages of English words have changed over the centuries. But the history of English usage is not the point. ( LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Language of Prayer )

Edited June 17, 2010 by Hemidakota

[volgadon]

I think praying in the second person singular pronoun is very important, because it emphasises that God is familiar, not formal and distant.

[Dravin]

I think praying in the second person singular pronoun is very important, because it emphasises that God is familiar, not formal and distant.

Indeed, this distinction (familiar not formal) is recommend for other languages is it not? The same sentiment is why I tend to pray to "Heavenly Father" and not "God" as some do, I feel the first emphasizes the intimate nature of our relationship while the second seems more distant. Of course there is significant cultural influence at play.

[urloony]

This idea would be contrary to what the Bible ought to say (according to JST) and what it did originally say being identical. Or I suppose one could argue that Joseph Smith made changes that were not limited to what the Bible ought to say but when above and beyond that.

This is a good point. Any restoration is not necessarily limited to the text. More to the point I was making however is that the JST goes far beyond simply correcting one particular version of the Bible namely the KJV.

I find the last part of greatest note. If Matthew was mistaken and what he did pen was incorrect then correcting him to create congruity is most definitely not restoring what the original text said.

This would also apply to portions of the BoM also changed by JS such as K. Benjamin to Mosiah among others.

[Dravin]

This is a good point. Any restoration is not necessarily limited to the text. More to the point I was making however is that the JST goes far beyond simply correcting one particular version of the Bible namely the KJV.

Oh I agree. Some of the changes are KJV specific (wot => know for instance) but it certainly isn't limited to it. For instance considering the extensive changes to say Matthew 23-24 I doubt had he been using a NIV or what have you he would have left it untouched, that information was missing regardless of what version you use.

This would also apply to portions of the BoM also changed by JS such as K. Benjamin to Mosiah among others.

I agree. If Mormon made a mistake with names (I'm not sure exactly what instance you are referring to) changing those names makes the BoM more accurate as far as it represents what may have happened or what was meant but less accurate as it reflects the actual text of the plates.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Dravin

[mnn727]

Is this really true? Are you taught to "pray in King James?" ?

We have been told to, but never by revelation. Thus it is leaders of the Church teaching it - now you can argue all day long about inspiration and authority. But again, until I see a revelation added to the official canon of the Church, to me it boils down to Tradition.

[urloony]

I agree. If Mormon made a mistake with names (I'm not sure exactly what instance you are referring to) changing those names makes the BoM more accurate as far as it represents what may have happened or what was meant but less accurate as it reflects the actual text of the brass plates.

Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" - FAIRMormon

Critics often target textual changes and other variants made to the BoM (while ignoring those in the Bible incidentally) many of which are significant when compared to the 1830 edition. Royal Skousen has done amazing work in this area if you are interested comparing various BoM publications to the small portion of original BoM manuscript and near complete Printer’s manuscript.

Changes in the Book of Mormon