KJV verses modern English Bibles

[Maureen]

mnn, at least your Bishop was open minded. It might take "orders from headquarters" before the majority of LDS realize that other English versions are just as valuable.

M.

[Moksha]

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.

In Gospel Doctrine class, I have quoted from the Message Bible when the teacher asked what a particular scripture meant. I received praise for being correct. Besides having a flowery poetic sense from from the 17th Century, the King James Bible also has the greatest ability to be misunderstood. Two reasons for this:

1. Use of language that is removed from ours by four centuries.

2. Less precise translation to begin with.

You are absolutely right about the possibility of being ratted on if you were to quote from a different Bible. When I used the Message Bible for an explanation, it actually sounded like my own words since it is written in the way we talk, so I got away with it.

Sounds a little kinky, if you ask me.

M.

True kinkiness would have been for the Mission President to first dress up in Nephite garb before using his belt.

[JohnnyRudick]

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

Again, Where is that laugh button?

[MrShorty]

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but this is a topic that I've recently taken an interest in. I've put a few searches through Google, found some interesting discussions, and wanted to offer a few comments/observations.

1) As PrisonChaplain indicated early on, there is a "King James Only" (KJO) movement throughout English Christianity that argues against the newer translations. While this really didn't surprise me, what did surprise me was how angry, hateful, spiteful, and contentious this debate sometimes became. One ministry indicated that the most "virulent and spiteful" hate emails they receive are not from Mormons, Catholics, or Muslims, but from other "KJO" Christians. The little contention I saw could certainly the contention I've witnessed in Mormon vs. Christian sessions. One unfortunate thing I saw in the original post about the discussion in EQ was how that discussion judgementally assigned such malevolent intent to those producing the newer traslations. The discussion over which manuscripts to use in a translation of the Bible is a healthy and important discussion. But, as Christ taught the Nephites, such a contentious approach is not going to help in the search for truth.

2) I was impressed, after reading through the history and considering the amount of time we are talking about, at how well the Bible has been preserved. I would even say, it seems a bit miraculous -- like God had a hand in preserving it.

3) I enjoyed reading the FAIRmormon article about changes to the BoM that someone posted. It was interesting to me to that they mentioned some of the different stages where human error appears to have entered into the process of publishing the BoM.

[Traveler]

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but this is a topic that I've recently taken an interest in. I've put a few searches through Google, found some interesting discussions, and wanted to offer a few comments/observations.

1) As PrisonChaplain indicated early on, there is a "King James Only" (KJO) movement throughout English Christianity that argues against the newer translations. While this really didn't surprise me, what did surprise me was how angry, hateful, spiteful, and contentious this debate sometimes became. One ministry indicated that the most "virulent and spiteful" hate emails they receive are not from Mormons, Catholics, or Muslims, but from other "KJO" Christians. The little contention I saw could certainly the contention I've witnessed in Mormon vs. Christian sessions. One unfortunate thing I saw in the original post about the discussion in EQ was how that discussion judgementally assigned such malevolent intent to those producing the newer traslations. The discussion over which manuscripts to use in a translation of the Bible is a healthy and important discussion. But, as Christ taught the Nephites, such a contentious approach is not going to help in the search for truth.

2) I was impressed, after reading through the history and considering the amount of time we are talking about, at how well the Bible has been preserved. I would even say, it seems a bit miraculous -- like God had a hand in preserving it.

3) I enjoyed reading the FAIRmormon article about changes to the BoM that someone posted. It was interesting to me to that they mentioned some of the different stages where human error appears to have entered into the process of publishing the BoM.

For many the only connection or authority of divine doctrine, ordinance and covenant comes to them through the Bible – or so they claim. Thus the Bible is in its current versions is their singular authoritative witness of Christ. We LDS understand that this is against the economy of G-d and how G-d establishes his word. (see Genesis 41:25 & 32 for two things becoming one to establish G-d’s word).

MrShorty – Terminology is very important when it come to solving disputes. How one uses terminology can create offences when something is said to convey one meaning when what is understood is not what was intended to be said. When we talk about “translations” of the Bible the word translation may be one such offending term. As far as I know the JW New World Translation is the only Bible that asserts being an actual “Translation”. But even that Bible as a translation can be argued because – like all other “versions” rely on many different classes of ancient biblical manuscripts. Technically to be an actual translation of text the translation would be faithful to specific “variant readings” of specific ancient text. Since there are no such translations the proper term to use is a version. One ancient Hebrew word of great inconstancy is the word “ehad” as it is used to describe “one G-d” in ancient text verses modern versions of that text.

A very brief history of the Bible since Charlemagne of about 600 AD. It was believed that the Masoretic Texts were the most accurate among the ancient Bible texts. This remained the predominate thought up to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls – that changed much. When you noted that the Bible has been well preserved – That is a statement that has become under criticism lately – specifically because of the DSS. The main question is – how well has the Bible been preserved compared to other documents on the same era and the answer is – not well. For example the Samaritan texts were considered among some of the most corrupted. What was obvious by the discovery of the DSS was that the Samaritan texts were far superior to the Masoretic text. The spin put forth is that “core” doctrines were very well preserved. But there is little consensus on what core doctrines as compared to other doctrines.

One of the questions put forth to LDS – is why we are not considering updating our official biblical version. The answer is that because of excerpts of the Joseph Smith translation and the Book of Mormon – we have (what we believe is) a far superior understanding of authority, doctrines, ordinances and covenants established by Jesus and his apostles.

But our point is not to win arguments. Our point as LDS is to being together all that would wait upon the return of Jesus. Most of that responsibility is accomplished when someone is converted and baptized by the restored authority we have been given. But not everyone that will be accepting of Jesus will have been baptized by that authority. Thus we also have a charge to have influence on those and build bridges to those that are not baptized LDS. I believe that to have such an influence we must be familiar with but not corrosive to their sacred understanding of things. And so it is that I have learned much from and have the highest respect for Prisonchaplin. He is a better example of what we ought to be doing than we are.

The Traveler

Edited December 8, 2010 by Traveler

[Truth_Seeker]

The major difference put simply is that the translations contained in King James are considered to be not as accurate to the original text because it was translated by Englishmen without a total knowledge of depth of the Hebrew or Greek languages. This is mostly a "fluff" argument though. The real meat and potatoes of the difference is that "New English Versions" or so-called "Catholic" bibles contain additional books which protestants and others considered a hack-job or gnostic.

These books are: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II and Maccabees.

[JohnnyRudick]

The major difference put simply is that the translations contained in King James are considered to be not as accurate to the original text because it was translated by Englishmen without a total knowledge of depth of the Hebrew or Greek languages. This is mostly a "fluff" argument though. The real meat and potatoes of the difference is that "New English Versions" or so-called "Catholic" bibles contain additional books which protestants and others considered a hack-job or gnostic.

These books are: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II and Maccabees.

Would not hurt to compare the Alexandrian derivatives with the descendants of the Syrian bibles as well.

Missing verses and chapters and a whole host of twisted verses.

Compare any of the TR's translations with any not pf this parentage.

[Traveler]

Would not hurt to compare the Alexandrian derivatives with the descendants of the Syrian bibles as well.

Missing verses and chapters and a whole host of twisted verses.

Compare any of the TR's translations with any not pf this parentage.

Good points but one does not even have to do that. Anyone that is bilingual can read “translations” or versions from the same ancient durative texts and many times from the same religious class of scholars to realize the interpretive drift that occurs even without significant changes in time. Add to that the culture drift in just a generation and one realizes more fully the problem of single reliance on the Bible as authority.

The Traveler