KJV verses modern English Bibles

[mnn727]

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.)

Somehow I doubt He prayed in English

Come on people, Joseph Smith used those words because it was the language of scripture in 1830 (ie Tradition)

[Dravin]

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

Thanks for the links, that's quite interesting and I must confess I did not know about that.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Dravin

[LocalFarms]

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?

I use the archaic when I pray. I was never taught to do so I followed the example of my parents. The motivation for me praying this way is because I feel it is more respectful. In spanish there are two ways to say the pronoun "you". When you are talking to a peer, you use the familiar "tu", but when you are speeking to a parent or a teacher, it is more respectful to use the formal "usted". I think of using the archaic speech in prayer the same way.

[Hemidakota]

This may help to see the changes made in the Book of Mormon from 1829-1844

19th Century Publications about the Book of Mormon (1829 - 1844) » Harold B. Lee Library

Edited June 17, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Justice]

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.

You missed my point.

I'm going to abbriviate the portions of the Bible Joseph Smith edited as the JSV, even though I know it doesn't constitute a version in and of itself.

Joseph Smith DID use the KJV. He DID alter and add to the text.

He did not use any other edition of the Bible.

Here is the reason that is important:

Once another translation is different than the KJV (whether they used the KJV as a starting place or not) that means we can no longer use the JSV as a study and comparison. Does that make sense? The JSV used the KJV and attempted to "restore it" to the original text of the writers. Yes, it is "The Bible" as you claim, and not any version. But, he was using the KJV and attempted to correct it to it's "perfect" form (the portions he corrected).

So, if you use the Book of Mormon and any version of the Bible you will do well. But, if you use the Book of Mormon and the KJV and JS corrections to it, it seems the best solution.

[ronism99403]

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.

The problem, I think, is that modern translations, no matter how well done, are, to some degree or another, interpretive. So, without the "gift of translation", something of the purity of the text would be lost. With that said, I think a modern translation of the BOM for use as a supplement to the original translation would be helpful for those who are not accustomed to a more King Jamesish flavor of English.

[Moksha]

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?

There is some LDS thought that believes select phrases from the time of King James are pleasing to God, however strict adherence to an all Jacobean English prayer is not required. For instance, we would not necessarily say, "...we beseech thee to givest us thine divine moisture where upon it droppeth upon the place beneath and is twice blessed".

[Maureen]

There is some LDS thought that believes select phrases from the time of King James are pleasing to God, however strict adherence to an all Jacobean English prayer is not required. For instance, we would not necessarily say, "...we beseech thee to givest us thine divine moisture where upon it droppeth upon the place beneath and is twice blessed".

This needs an LOL!!!

M.

[prisonchaplain]

I use the archaic when I pray. I was never taught to do so I followed the example of my parents. The motivation for me praying this way is because I feel it is more respectful. In spanish there are two ways to say the pronoun "you". When you are talking to a peer, you use the familiar "tu", but when you are speeking to a parent or a teacher, it is more respectful to use the formal "usted". I think of using the archaic speech in prayer the same way.

I understand. Yes, there is a time for usted. "Father God I commit this interview into Thy hands..." And yet, there are those times when we cry out, "Papi! Ayudame! (Daddy, help me!). The same God who is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and all that is, is also the lover of my soul. We both humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord, and we come boldy to the throne of grace. So, I get it...but would hope that it's a matter of time and place, and not a constant demand for formality.

[urloony]

You missed my point.

I'm going to abbriviate the portions of the Bible Joseph Smith edited as the JSV, even though I know it doesn't constitute a version in and of itself.

Joseph Smith DID use the KJV. He DID alter and add to the text.

He did not use any other edition of the Bible.

Here is the reason that is important:

Once another translation is different than the KJV (whether they used the KJV as a starting place or not) that means we can no longer use the JSV as a study and comparison. Does that make sense? The JSV used the KJV and attempted to "restore it" to the original text of the writers. Yes, it is "The Bible" as you claim, and not any version. But, he was using the KJV and attempted to correct it to it's "perfect" form (the portions he corrected).

So, if you use the Book of Mormon and any version of the Bible you will do well. But, if you use the Book of Mormon and the KJV and JS corrections to it, it seems the best solution.

I understand where you are coming from. But using that logic wouldn't one be best off simply using the JST in it's most complete form as published by the RLDS and bypass the KJV altogether?

Translators do not base their translation on other versions of the Bible. Translations are based upon early Hebrew and Greek fragments and manuscript. The JST isn't based on either the KJV or early manuscript. The changes made are revelatory in nature more like the BoMoses. One could argue that studying the scriptures with a BoM a JST and the NIV would be just as valid as using a KJV with footnotes. Honestly, using the full JST instead of the KJV may be better as our version of the KJV does not contain the complete JST, just small selections.

[Obolus]

Much thanks to all above who posted such informative links.

I can only add that I feel a strong kinship to the KJV, mainly due to the repeated use of archaic English in the sacramental prayers. The usage of this dialect may be traditional, but the tie to renewed covenant is a strong one. A layer of removal from common, modern English seems very appropriate to me personally. That said, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to cross study as many versions of the Bible as they have time for.

I've just ordered a used RLDS JST. The mere fact that it won't contain all the footnotes that our KJV has sounds completely liberating to me.

[mnn727]

Once another translation is different than the KJV (whether they used the KJV as a starting place or not) that means we can no longer use the JSV as a study and comparison. Does that make sense? .

Not in the least. Sorry but I can not see any logic behind your statement as there are many foriegn language Bibles (non-KJV) in use in the Church. Edited June 18, 2010 by mnn727

[urloony]

Much thanks to all above who posted such informative links.

I can only add that I feel a strong kinship to the KJV, mainly due to the repeated use of archaic English in the sacramental prayers. The usage of this dialect may be traditional, but the tie to renewed covenant is a strong one. A layer of removal from common, modern English seems very appropriate to me personally. That said, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to cross study as many versions of the Bible as they have time for.

I've just ordered a used RLDS JST. The mere fact that it won't contain all the footnotes that our KJV has sounds completely liberating to me.

Great points. You can also find a complete online edition of the JST here

[mnn727]

For instance, we would not necessarily say, "...we beseech thee to givest us thine divine moisture where upon it droppeth upon the place beneath and is twice blessed".

I will be giving the closing prayer in Scarament this Sunday and we do need rain here in Texas.......

[Justice]

I understand where you are coming from. But using that logic wouldn't one be best off simply using the JST in it's most complete form as published by the RLDS and bypass the KJV altogether?

Honestly, using the full JST instead of the KJV may be better as our version of the KJV does not contain the complete JST, just small selections.

There are obvious, logical reason why we do not.

The JST isn't based on either the KJV or early manuscript. The changes made are revelatory in nature more like the BoMoses. One could argue that studying the scriptures with a BoM a JST and the NIV would be just as valid as using a KJV with footnotes.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

The KJV is said to have some of the symbolisms intact that are distorted or destroyed by other versions.

The GAs made the KJV the official version of the Church, and have left it that way, for a reason IMO.

[Justice]

Not in the least. Sorry but I can not see any logic behind your statement as there are many foriegn language Bibles (non-KJV) in use in the Church.

Yes, the German Bible is said to have the most accurate translation.

Doesn't really matter though, German and English are different. I'm sure the Church could put together an accurate Bible if it needed to.

I'm looking forward to the day when we get all of Christ's words that He spoke to the people in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi). He taught all things to them from the beginning to the end and expounded all scripture in one.

I think what we have is good enough for now, and serves the desired purpose for those seeking truth.

[mnn727]

I think what we have is good enough for now, and serves the desired purpose for those seeking truth.

In your opinion and for your generation. If this Church wants to continue to get converts in English speaking countries it needs to stop putting up roadblocks to reading the Gospel which is what the KJV is: a roadblock

[Justice]

If you use just the KJV then I would agree. However, as has been stated many times, we have the Book of Mormon to help clarify and also the portion of the KJV that Joseph Smith corrected.

The only roadblock remaining is the one that people use to not see that the Book of Mormon is true. That's a personal thing, not based on what version of the Bible the CHurch uses.

Converts come because people feel and listen to the Spirit. The conversion happens by recognizing Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture, not by correctly understanding any particular translation or version of the Bible.

If people honestly and sincerely read their scriptures and desire and pray to understand and be led to the truth, it will happen.

I'd venture to say the roadblock is people aren't reading whatever version of the Bible they prefer enough, as opposed to not understanding what it means because it's worded one way or another.

[Elgama]

I have many bibles - I think its great to have standardization of the Bible's for church its irritating to me when I am in a non LDS church and you have to 'translate' on the hoof. I love reading the JB Phillips New Testament and I have a New English Bible with an Apocrypha in it. I have seen some LDS use the NIV in the books they write so I got a copy so I could cross reference/ Plus nothing beats the Topical Guide and our bible dictionary for a hand held concordance

[Hemidakota]

I will be giving the closing prayer in Scarament this Sunday and we do need rain here in Texas.......

How is your faith?

[Hemidakota]

If you use just the KJV then I would agree. However, as has been stated many times, we have the Book of Mormon to help clarify and also the portion of the KJV that Joseph Smith corrected.

The only roadblock remaining is the one that people use to not see that the Book of Mormon is true. That's a personal thing, not based on what version of the Bible the CHurch uses.

Converts come because people feel and listen to the Spirit. The conversion happens by recognizing Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture, not by correctly understanding any particular translation or version of the Bible.

If people honestly and sincerely read their scriptures and desire and pray to understand and be led to the truth, it will happen.

I'd venture to say the roadblock is people aren't reading whatever version of the Bible they prefer enough, as opposed to not understanding what it means because it's worded one way or another.

Try asking other members if they have ever read the Bible from cover to cover.

[urloony]

Try asking other members if they have ever read the Bible from cover to cover.

Growing up protestant, I can say that there is far more emphasis on reading scriptures as a Latter-Day Saint than there ever was for me when I was younger. I think it would be a comparatively interesting statistic.

[urloony]

In your opinion and for your generation. If this Church wants to continue to get converts in English speaking countries it needs to stop putting up roadblocks to reading the Gospel which is what the KJV is: a roadblock

I have to say I don't see the KJV as a roadblock. My eight year old does fine reading the KJV. We have to remember that there is no limitation policy, doctrinally, or otherwise that prevents anyone from reading or studying from other versions. I came from an NIV background in my Congregational church, I found transitioning to the KJV a non-issue. If it was hard for someone else, give them an NIV. Remember though, converts first read the BoM which is written in old English like the KJV, so in essence you may want to shift your argument to an "easy-read BoM." That, by your logic, may be a bigger roadblock.

[RipplecutBuddha]

There are over 40 english versions/editions/translations of the Bible currently available. As long as the core doctrines and principles to the Gospel of Jesus Christ are intact, I see no issue with using the version one is comfortable with. Having said that, the church has stayed with the KJV text as the official wording for the bible we use. IMHO, until we need a better version (or until we are worthy of a greater understanding in general as a church), I don't really see the problem with the KJV.

"As far as it is translated correctly" is not necessarily the same as saying "As long as it's the right translation".

[Gerasim]

Just want to show what bring me to read KJV. In Num 11:25 it talk about ''they prophesied, and did not cease.'' but in our Slovenian bible it is translated ''That they latter did not do anymore.''The same thing here .... the story I see this with KJV totaly diferent.