KJV verses modern English Bibles

[mnn727]

So heres the NEW KJV, a more readable version, same meaning of the verse you posted

Numbers 11:25 (21st Century King James Version)

25And the LORD came down in a cloud and spoke unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him and gave it unto the seventy elders; and it came to pass that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

This verse only changes 1 word, from spake to spoke. When is the last time anyone here used "Spake" in a sentence in real life? Personally I think the 'unto' should have been changed to 'to'

Edited July 8, 2010 by mnn727

[Maureen]

I think what Gerasim has pointed out is that the ending of Numbers 11:25 in the KJV is different than other versions. The NET Bible renders this verse as:

And the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to them, and he took some of the Spirit that was on Moses 1 and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, 2 they prophesied, 3 but did not do so again. 4

Many other English versions show a similar ending except for the KJV.

NETBible: Numbers 11:25

M.

[Gerasim]

Yes, thank you Maureen. I am not so good in english, thank you for your understanding.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gerasim
adding words

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have a four examples of different Bible versions translated differently:

New International Version Proverbs 24:16: "for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity."

King James Version Proverbs 24:16: "For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief."

King James Version Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

New International Version Matthew 18:11: Removed from the text

King James Version Luke 11:2-4: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

New International Version Luke 11:2-4: "He said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation."

King James Version Luke 4:4: "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

New International Version Luke 4:4: "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone."

[Still_Small_Voice]

Here is a difficult passage. I've read it many times and think I know what it means:

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." King James Version 1 John 5:16-17

I think it means If anyone sees his brother sinning in weakness pray for him and the LORD will give strength for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin that leads to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

[Moksha]

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.

This is an excellent point. We have all heard those unfamiliar with the LDS Church make incorrect statements about it, but by the same token many incorrect statements are made by LDS about other churches. Happens all the time in my Priesthood quorum as well.

Visiting the "other" is a good way of learning both what they believe and how they function. That way we are more in tune with Jesus' suggestion that we love others. What better way to accomplish this than by getting to know them.

There have been so many times in listening to folks talk about the LDS Church, that I just wished they would visit and actually see for themselves. I would not have the goal in mind of soliciting their membership, but rather to simply foster better understanding and compassion.

:)

[Daniel2020]

...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 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.

An excellent insight! Thanks for the post.

I have a Bible with four columns and each column contains a different translation. I've found it most helpful.

[JessicaHarper]

The modern English translations, as a rule of thumb, are at least slightly closer to the original manuscripts...

Exactly.

I happen to find this very, very interesting.

[urloony]

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.

Your comment is somewhat ironic, considering the point of the BoM and the restoration is because the doctrines and priniples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are NOT intact regardless of which translation of the Bible one uses.

[urloony]

I have a four examples of different Bible versions translated differently:

and...?

[prisonchaplain]

Well...just so everyone knows...if I ever do convert, and am subsequently elected (through what would clearly be a God-ordained series of dozens of miraculous events) President of the church, I will, as my first order of business, convene a modern translation of the Bible, relying on the best LDS scholars, only after they've been prayed over, anointed with oil, and endured 40-days of fasting (water allowed). :-)

[Dravin]

Well...just so everyone knows...if I ever do convert, and am subsequently elected (through what would clearly be a God-ordained series of dozens of miraculous events) President of the church, I will, as my first order of business, convene a modern translation of the Bible, relying on the best LDS scholars, only after they've been prayed over, anointed with oil, and endured 40-days of fasting (water allowed). :-)

I recommend a Jell-o (green) only fast. They get water and sustenance while divesting themselves of unholy foods.

[mnn727]

I recommend a Jell-o (green) only fast. .

Come on, you know the only True Jello is Orange.

[Dravin]

Come on, you know the only True Jello is Orange.

Only if it contains mandarin oranges in it.

[Still_Small_Voice]

The verse difference is evident Urloony. Please read it and study.

[rameumptom]

PC,

We use the KJV because in Joseph Smith's day it was the most popular English version, and it allows for a common universal translation for all members to use today. There is nothing wrong with members using other translations in their personal study.

The LDS Church just updated the Spanish version of their Bible. They used the 1909 version of the Reino-Valera Spanish Bible, rather than the more modern version, because it is no longer under any copyright. So, often the LDS choice in scripture is due to pragmatism, rather than what is the best translation.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Your comment is somewhat ironic, considering the point of the BoM and the restoration is because the doctrines and priniples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are NOT intact regardless of which translation of the Bible one uses.

The core doctrines and principles that are presently in the Bible have been there from the beginning. I never said the Bible was complete and perfect, as your comment seems to imply.

Stated another way, those parts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that are currently in the bible can ususally be found in all versions of the Bible now avialiable.

As such, a member choosing to use the NIV or NLT will not see much of a doctrinal difference from that which is found in the KJV.

[Moksha]

As such, a member choosing to use the NIV or NLT will not see much of a doctrinal difference from that which is found in the KJV.

It's like Jell-O. No need to get our tail ends bunched up on the color or flavor, since they all have the same wiggly goodness in their pages.

[JohnnyRudick]

PC,

We use the KJV because in Joseph Smith's day it was the most popular English version, and it allows for a common universal translation for all members to use today. There is nothing wrong with members using other translations in their personal study.

The LDS Church just updated the Spanish version of their Bible. They used the 1909 version of the Reino-Valera Spanish Bible, rather than the more modern version, because it is no longer under any copyright. So, often the LDS choice in scripture is due to pragmatism, rather than what is the best translation.

From what I understand the 1909 Reino-Valera Spanish Bible is a good

translation of the Textus Receptus that the King James Bible is taken from

(including other translations that also were taken from the TR.

Sooooooooooooo, Us using the King James Bible and the

1909 Reino-Valera Spanish Bible workes out quite well other then just pragmatic reasons.

I think:huh:

[mnn727]

It's like Jell-O. No need to get our tail ends bunched up on the color or flavor, since they all have the same wiggly goodness in their pages.

Try quoting a non-KJV version in a classroom setting and see how fast two or three people are talking to the Bishop - happened to me when I did it in E.Q. once when teaching.

[Maureen]

Try quoting a non-KJV version in a classroom setting and see how fast two or three people are talking to the Bishop - happened to me when I did it in E.Q. once when teaching.

What did your Bishop do?

M.

[Vanhin]

What did your Bishop do?

M.

He spanked him...

My mission president used to grab his belt as he called in another missionary to be interviewed and said, "Come on in Elder So-and-so, I still have some belt left for you."

Vanhin

[Maureen]

He spanked him...

My mission president used to grab his belt as he called in another missionary to be interviewed and said, "Come on in Elder So-and-so, I still have some belt left for you."

Vanhin

Sounds a little kinky, if you ask me.

M.

[spamlds]

All Bible translators, no matter how hard they try, are going to have some kind of doctrinal prejudice they're going to impose upon the text. It occurs because they have to interpret idiomatic phrases and prepositions. The interpretation of them makes subtle difference in meaning. For example if you as an American what's "on" television. He'll tell you the name of the program he's watching. If you translate that question literally into German, he might tell you that there's a vase of flowers "on" the television. German's conceptualize the program as being "in" the television. If you asked an American what's in is television, he'd shrug and tell you that there were circuit boards, wires, and connectors.

Literal translation can actually lose the meaning. Think of Isaiah's verse:

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

When Christian missionaries first went to the Polynesian islands, they were faced with problem trying to translate this verse so that people who hadn't seen ever seen snow or wool would understand it. A literal translation didn't teach the proper message. So they taught it to the people using the feather of a cockatiel or a kind of shell that was white. Was this a literal translation? No, but it taught the true meaning.

That's what you run into in Bible translations. People translate things according to their meaning. Thus when a translator translates Psalm 8:5 that says "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour," he is faced with a dilemma. The word for angels is "elohim" in the Hebrew. It means "gods." Well for someone translating it, he either has to go with the literal meaning (which agrees with LDS doctrine) or change it to fit his own.

When Jesus told the Pharisees that the "kingdom of God is within you," a French-language and German translations uses the preposition that would more correctly be rendered as "among." That also fits with LDS doctrine--the Church is the kingdom of God in an actual sense, not some internal presence in the heart of believers in differing, contradictory sects.

It's good to examine various Bible translations, but overall, the written word is inherently inadequate to convey a fullness of meaning and is inevitably open to interpretation. That's why living oracles are so important.

If this topic interests you, I wrote a more detailed article and had some fun with the topic in my Examiner.com column. Check it out at the link below.

'Biting the wax tadpole' and other translation errors (part one) - National LDS Church | Examiner.com

[mnn727]

What did your Bishop do?

M.

The Bishop was cool about it to me, just said to use the official KJV verson when teaching, but the fact that at least 2 people went running to him is what got me. My gosh - you'd think I was letting my wife get a 2nd earring or I was growing a beard or something.

My whole point in starting this thread a longtime ago was that not even the KJV is perfect so we use footnotes to the JST to clear things up, we could do the same thing with a modern version and it would be much easier to read and understand for EVERYONE. If just one person stops investigating the Church because they find the KJV too hard to understand, isn;t that 1 too many? or what if I had been just a bit more thin skinned and decided to become more offended than I was and become inactive due to these "good brethren" getting their "panties in a bunch" from hearing Gods word in an understandable form?(can you tell it still kinda bothers me - I really do equate these 'brothers' with the Pharisee's of old - but I will not let their action's dictate my level of activity)

Edited August 20, 2010 by mnn727