use of the Kings James Version

[soulfire]

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

[skippy740]

soulfire,

I'm not much of a scripture historian, but I'll answer your 3rd question: Joseph Smith did begin a translation of the Bible and we can read excerpts of this in the LDS version of the KJV bible footnotes.

I do know that the church uses various other languages of the Bible and accepts them as accurate translations. Santa Biblia (spanish bible) isn't the KJV, but it is the official bible for LDS. The LDS church recently came out with a fully indexed & footnoted version of this bible just a few years ago.

While some of the other versions are easier to read (using plain modern english), I personally find them to lack a certain reverence. I suppose it's just my upbringing to use "thee, thy, thou" in scriptural and prayer language.

[Justice]

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

My question would be according to who's interpretation?

Scholars even disagree about what exactly happened and what the words in the original languages meant at the time they were written.

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

It's not that the Church doesn't "like" any other translation, it's that we have been given a study guide to go along with the KJV so that we can understand it better. We were not given one for any other verstion.

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

As I was saying, Joseph Smith did make a more accurate translation of the Bible, which we use as a study guide.

There are a few reasons why we don't use it as the official Bible of the Church. Not the least of these reasons is that we are a missionary Church. We send tens of thousands of missionaries out into the world to teach about Jesus Christ. For someone who has never heard of Joseph Smith or the restoration, it is best that they first learn that he was a true prophet called of God just like Old and New Testament prophets before they learn we use his translation of the Bible.

Once a person sees the Book of Mormon as being translated by the gift and power of God, they are in a much better position to see that his translation of the Bible was done by his prophetic gifts as well.

Very good questions.

[applepansy]

Skippy, I agree with you. Plain English translations seem less sacred to me. I think we lose some of the nuisance in the plain english versions.

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

The reason we use the KJV is because our prophets have declared it to be the most accurate translation.

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

See Skippy's response.

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

You might want to ask God why He hasn't instructed the Prophet to create another version. I'm sure as mere mortals we'll only be guessing at any reasons Heavenly Father might have.

[Snow]

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

If God loved people, wouldn't he eliminate all warfare?

Since God made humans warm-blooded, why did he invent snow?

If God cared about mankind, why does he allow country music.

[Snow]

soulfire,

I'm not much of a scripture historian, but I'll answer your 3rd question: Joseph Smith did begin a translation of the Bible and we can read excerpts of this in the LDS version of the KJV bible footnotes.

It wasn't a translation. He didn't translate anything.

[Martain]

Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary?

D&C 45:60-61

And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known;

Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.

If it isn't a translation... why do they call it JST or the Joseph Smith Translation?

As to the original question I'd like to share the introduction information found inside these books here and here which are also sold and used by the LDS Institute.

INTRODUCTION

In Doctrine and Covenants 45:60-61, 73:304, and 76:15, Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to "translate" the Bible. While the meaning of "translate" might initially seem obvious, there are actually several interesting and viable possibilities. Dr. Robert L. Millet, Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, has described three perspectives for how one can view Joseph Smith's "translation" (1985, p. 43). He proposes that Joseph's "translation" could be:

1) Inspired prophetic commentary; and/or,

2) Harmonization of the themes, accounts and theologies in the Biblical text with Joseph's progressing understanding of truth, focused by his continual revelations from the Lord; and/or,

3) Restoration by Joseph oof text originally included in the Bible, but lost or changed through centuries of textual transmission and cross-language rendering.

Each of these three possibilities should be especially interesting to Latter0day Saints. Whether a given change represents one or more of these three possibilities, "new" ways of reading the text, and therefrom new insights, are possible.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

After purchasing an 1828 edition of the King James Version (KJV) Bible from E. B. Grandin, the Prophet Joseph Smith spent 16 years, virtually to the time of his martyrdom, following the Lord's commandment to translate. This enormous effort produced chances in over 4,000 verses of the text of the KJV Bible. The marked Bible and accompanying manuscripts produced by Joseph i nthe translation process were, following his death, left in the private possession of Emma Hale Smith. Later in her life, she donated the manuscript to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). The manuscript has remained in their possession to the present time.

For a substantial period of time, access for LDS scholars to the Bible and manuscripts of Joseph's work was very limited. This limited access created some feelings of caution on the part of the LDS students of the scriptures concerning the accuracy of the JST texts being published by the RLDS church (such as the Inspired Bible). However, since Robert J. Matthews, former Dean of BYU Religious Education, was given full access to the Bible and manuscripts in the 1960's, no serious doubt has survived in the LDS scholarly community that the Joseph Smith Translation, as represented in RLDS publications, is fundamentally reliable and complete when compared to Joseph's original work.

In the LDS Bible we have a numerous amount of Joseph Smith Translations available either in their own section or as footnotes. Yet there is a large amount of JST that was not added therein. The bulk of the JST we have in the LDS Bible arises from documents that came to the west with the saints. I'm not sure how much if any of the JST that remained with Emma and now copyrighted by the RLDS Chuch (whose current/new name I cannot recall) has made it into the current LDS Bible but I am under the understanding that most of it could not be added due to copyright laws. One of the reasons why I value the two books I linked to above =).

As for why the the Lord hasn't called another Prophet in the LDS Church to finish the translation? I do know. I have heard an opinion as to one reason why though. We have enough difficulty seeking to convince the world of a new book of revelation, the Book of Mormon, without also seeking to tell them that we have a new Bible to replace theirs.

Another thought would be this. Right now we have the KJV and the work Joseph Smith completed to review. If this were substantially different as a whole from what the Bible was meant to read, perhaps the Lord would have the rest revealed. Another would be that perhaps it has not been revealed for the same reasons that other works of scripture remain sealed. This being primarily unbelief and unrighteousness. Why should the Lord see fit to reveal the rest when as a whole we're still working on accepting the Book of Mormon and living according to it's teachings?

As for one reason why the KJV version was used, my understanding is that it was the only version at that time which had official world wide acceptance.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Martain

[volgadon]

Since God made humans warm-blooded, why did he invent snow?

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words.

[volgadon]

Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary?

Which isn't necessarily the original form, but rather an inspired commentary on how we are to view scripture and apply it. It fits an old Jewish practice of targum, which is a reinterpretation of scripture acheived by translating it.

[prisonchaplain]

If God cared about mankind, why does he allow country music.

Was it Marie or Donny who said s/he was "a little bit country..."

Ah...but I digress.

[Justice]

It wasn't a translation. He didn't translate anything.

If you want to get technical, he didn't "translate" the Book of Mormon either. If your definition is that a person has to know both languages, the one being read, and the one being written, in order to make a linguistic translation, then you can discount the Book of Mormon.

The "translation" of the Bible made by Joseph Smith was the same as the translation of the Book of Mormon. They were translated into English through revelation.

[Snow]

If you want to get technical, he didn't "translate" the Book of Mormon either. If your definition is that a person has to know both languages, the one being read, and the one being written, in order to make a linguistic translation, then you can discount the Book of Mormon.

The "translation" of the Bible made by Joseph Smith was the same as the translation of the Book of Mormon. They were translated into English through revelation.

Uh, no.

The Golden Plate were written in a language other than English and Joseph Smith converted them to English. Though his methodology was unique, it was a translation.

In contrast to a translation, Joseph Smith took the King James Version in English and then edited it, no translation was involved.

[Snow]

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words.

I initial irony was lost on me... but now I see it.

[Blackmarch]

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

because the kjv is the most recognised translation and while the newer translations that improve on some points they also lose on other points. I know quite a few lds who use a bunch of different bible translations.

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

Joseph smith did recieve inspiration and revelation regarding this and did do his own translation which we do use... However a reason why we dont have that as a standalone is because the church was not able to retain it or the copyright for it due to difficult circumstances early in the churches history.

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

We will get one the day we get a flawless person to be here in person to do such flawlessly....

Dont think thats going to happen before the second coming tho.

Another thing we have to understand about God is that part of the reason we decided to leave the spirit world and to gain mortal bodies was to leave the influence of God so that for good or ill we could make choices completely on our own will, and so we are left to the consequences of our actions for the most part, even the consequences of the actions (or inaction) of those trusted in passing on the records that became the bible.

It is extremely rare for God to step in and undo the actions of others, as the Lords time for reigning upon this world is not yet.

[volgadon]

I know quite a few lds who use a bunch of different bible translations.

So do I, they are called non-English speakers... =)

[RMGuy]

soulfire,

While some of the other versions are easier to read (using plain modern english), I personally find them to lack a certain reverence. I suppose it's just my upbringing to use "thee, thy, thou" in scriptural and prayer language.

Which is interesting since during the time when the KJV was translated thou was considered very informal and you was considered much more formal. Almost a reverse of what we have today....in other words if an English Citizen were to read a current translate as opposed to the KJV, he or she would likely find the modern translation to more formal/reverential than the historical one. For us, it seems just the opposite is true.

Interesting that we see thee, thine, thou, and thy as formal, when they actually were the exact opposite.

-RM

[Guest gopecon]

I think that we use the KJV because it is a good translation. I think the whys of not using the full JST are pretty clear, we'd really wind up talking past each other when discussing things with our Christian friends. Likewise if there were to be an LDS translation. As for changing versions to get a "better translation" to use...I think you have to look at the costs versus the benefits. Right now, the vast majority of the English speaking church members have the KJV in our homes. All English church resources are printed using this version. There would be a fair amount of minor confusion during the transitional period when we switched over to the new standardly accepted Bible. Verses that have been memorized in KJV english would sound strange in new version english. As we have a good version of the Bible that is well known and very familiar to most members, why go to the trouble for what would probably be minimal benefit?

[Dravin]

Interesting that we see thee, thine, thou, and thy as formal, when they actually were the exact opposite.

-RM

Also in (some) non-English prayer language my understanding is close personal words are used as opposed to what might be considered the 'formal'. One uses the terms they'd speak with a respected grandparent or father rather then the terms they might use to refer to their boss. The key element being respect and closeness rather than formality.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

Which is interesting since during the time when the KJV was translated thou was considered very informal and you was considered much more formal. Almost a reverse of what we have today....in other words if an English Citizen were to read a current translate as opposed to the KJV, he or she would likely find the modern translation to more formal/reverential than the historical one. For us, it seems just the opposite is true.

Interesting that we see thee, thine, thou, and thy as formal, when they actually were the exact opposite.

Elder Oaks explained this seemingly contradictory phenomenon in our use of "thou" in prayer:

Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. Latter-day Saints, of course, prefer the latter. In our prayers we use language that is dignified and different, even archaic.

[...]

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.

Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.

Reasoning for prayer is very different from reasoning for scriptures, however. For scriptures, I vastly prefer the KJV over any other version, if for nothing else than that it does use "thou", "thee", and "thy/thine". Consider the following New American Standard Version rendering of the Lord's words to Peter in Luke 22:31-32:

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.

Who does Satan desire to "sift...like wheat"? Peter? The apostles? For whom has Jesus prayed? Not really clear in this translation. Now, compare the KJV's beautiful version:

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Here we can clearly see what's going on: Satan desires to have "you" -- that is, Christ's disciples -- but Jesus has prayed "for thee" -- Peter, personally -- who is then personally commissioned to "strengthen [his] brethren".

How vastly more impressive is this revelation of the Lord regarding his personal care for Peter and subsequent expectations! The NIV does a reasonable job of preserving this meaning:

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

but, in my estimation, it preserves overall meaning at the cost of a clunky and ungraceful phraseology.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Vort

[Justice]

In contrast to a translation, Joseph Smith took the King James Version in English and then edited it, no translation was involved.

How could he have "edited" all those chapters that didn't exist in the KJV? Like all the extra things in Matthew, and in Genesis that Joseph of Egypt wrote?

I see where you are coming from (I did before I made my initial response), but I believe Joseph Smith translated the Bible from revelation, otherwise, it's just as suspect to errors as any other translation.

[Vort]

How could he have "edited" all those chapters that didn't exist in the KJV? Like all the extra things in Matthew, and in Genesis that Joseph of Egypt wrote?

I see where you are coming from (I did before I made my initial response), but I believe Joseph Smith translated the Bible from revelation, otherwise, it's just as suspect to errors as any other translation.

Don't apologize for calling Joseph Smith's Bible work a "translation", Justice. Joseph Smith himself referred to it as that. The current LDS edition of the scriptures refers to it as the "Joseph Smith Translation". If others want to quibble and whine that the Prophet's efforts don't fit their own definition of "translation" closely enough to suit them, let them whine.

[Justice]

What's interesting is that I agree that going from English to English wouldn't be a "translation" as the definition is generally accepted. If I believed that's what happened, I wouldn't have said a word. The fact that it went from English to English, but has been changed and has had many chapters and verses added, is what's interesting. That it didn't get translated from one language to another, yet still had many changes... where did the changes come from?

Hence: Revelation to English, the same pattern as the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it is a translation... just as much as the Book of Mormon is.

I appreciate when people use valid definitions and point out their view. Hopefully, Snow will see that it couldn't have been just an "edit" since it has more than word and expression changes, but entire chapter additions.

[Maureen]

What's interesting is that I agree that going from English to English wouldn't be a "translation" as the definition is generally accepted. If I believed that's what happened, I wouldn't have said a word. The fact that it went from English to English, but has been changed and has had many chapters and verses added, is what's interesting. That it didn't get translated from one language to another, yet still had many changes... where did the changes come from?

Hence: Revelation to English, the same pattern as the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it is a translation... just as much as the Book of Mormon is.

I appreciate when people use valid definitions and point out their view. Hopefully, Snow will see that it couldn't have been just an "edit" since it has more than word and expression changes, but entire chapter additions.

One definition of edit is: to revise or correct, as a manuscript.

Compared to the word translate, I would have to agree with Snow, that edit is the correct word to use from the LDS perspective.

M.

[Justice]

How do you explain entire chapters being added? What did he "revise?" The chapters are new and don't exist in the KJV.

[volgadon]

Redaction might be a better term, but I don't know of any definition of "to edit" which rules out adding material.