use of the Kings James Version


soulfire
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, anyone who writes a book simply edits it because the blank paper changed?

C'mon, you can't "edit or revise" something if there's nothing there to edit. I understand he started with the KJV, but there are writings in his translation that don't exist anywhere else. Some of what he did can certainly be called "edit or revise," but when you add a story that was not there, although you "change the existing text" it can't be considered a "revision of the Bible" if an entire chapter was added.

Sure, it's a revision to the KJV, but adding chapters is very different than changing a word here and there. Anyone can study ancient languages and possibly come up with a better word or phrase to describe something, but if anyone adds chapters, they better be a prophet, and it better be revelation.

This is why I feel "edit or revise" does not fit what happened.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, anyone who writes a book simply edits it because the blank paper changed?

Ah yes, reductio ad absurdum. A new edition of a book often includes material not present earlier. You seem to be using a very narrow deifintion of "edit".

C'mon, you can't "edit or revise" something if there's nothing there to edit. I understand he started with the KJV, but there are writings in his translation that don't exist anywhere else. Some of what he did can certainly be called "edit or revise," but when you add a story that was not there, although you "change the existing text" it can't be considered a "revision of the Bible" if an entire chapter was added.

What do you mean "nothing there to edit" He edited the KJV, it was there. Part of his editing involved incorporating material that wasn't in the KJV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon, you can't "edit or revise" something if there's nothing there to edit. I understand he started with the KJV, but there are writings in his translation that don't exist anywhere else. Some of what he did can certainly be called "edit or revise," but when you add a story that was not there, although you "change the existing text" it can't be considered a "revision of the Bible" if an entire chapter was added.

Why not? I've added entire paragraphs on a revision of a paper before), some of them bringing up novel concepts and points that weren't present in the paper before the edit/revision. People who write books can have entire chapters removed by their editors or likewise add new chapters. Ask someone like Rowling (or someone who has worked on a PHD thesis) if all the editing and revising she did in one of the (earlier as she got famous she got more latitude and it showed in some of the later books) Harry Potter books consisted of only "adding a word here or there".

I'll admit that while editing/revision works it isn't particularly descriptive but there may not be a simple phrase or singular word that captures the essence (well personally I'm fine with translation but I recognize that's not the best fit if one wants to be picky) that you seem to be shooting for. But just because calling it a automobile doesn't tell you it's a 2009 Honda Civic Coupe doesn't mean it's not an automobile.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's different working on a novel than something that is supposed to be historical, factual, or even scriptural, declaring that it actually happened and is the word of God. You can add to a story you made up easily, and you can even say it was supposed to be there all along. That's very different than adding entire chapters claiming them to be historical. You better not be making it up or you are lying, fabricating, or claiming it actually happened if you only made it up in your mind.

As I said, there's no doubt that by definition, he edited the KJV. My attention is on the portions that could not simply be edited because they did not exist. Those portions had to have been a translation from revelation, just as the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's different working on a novel than something that is supposed to be historical, factual, or even scriptural, declaring that it actually happened and is the word of God.

There are non-fictional works (one hopes a PHD thesis isn't fictional). One can even edit a non-fictional account to add new material to the original work to clarify it because critical details aren't there. Heck, D&C was edited by adding verses of novel revelation: Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes - FAIRMormon

You need to make up your mind though, does the term editing not refer to 'largish' additions of new material? Or is it that editing can't refer to the addition of revelation to an extant portion of scripture? Because it can to both.

You better not be making it up or you are lying, fabricating, or claiming it actually happened if you only made it up in your mind.

And? I'm confused are we debating this? Assertions like this are a bit confusing because they make me feel like I'm missing something rather obvious about the topic. Sort of like discussing bananas and having someone exclaim, "You better not be mashing them up and putting them in people's gas tanks."

As I said, there's no doubt that by definition, he edited the KJV.

I'm confused then because it looks like you are objecting to calling the JST an edit or revision. The JST refers to the work he did to the KJV collectively. By all appearances you are objecting that it can't be called a revision or an edit because it added new material but here you are conceding it is. There is a breakdown in communication somewhere.

Those portions had to have been a translation from revelation, just as the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants.

Using such a definition it is a translation but it's not mutually exclusive, it can be both a translation (in such a sense as you propose) and a revision or edit. Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's different working on a novel than something that is supposed to be historical, factual, or even scriptural, declaring that it actually happened and is the word of God. You can add to a story you made up easily, and you can even say it was supposed to be there all along. That's very different than adding entire chapters claiming them to be historical. You better not be making it up or you are lying, fabricating, or claiming it actually happened if you only made it up in your mind.

As I said, there's no doubt that by definition, he edited the KJV. My attention is on the portions that could not simply be edited because they did not exist. Those portions had to have been a translation from revelation, just as the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants.

Typically translation would mean to turn from one language into another language, so your argument would be that JS translated from nothing into something via revelation. But you don't think JS could have edited by adding or removing via revelation?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why use the KJV?

Reason 1: Tradition

Reason 2: Because someone once said that the use of archaic language is more reverent and now everyone believes that fallacy.

Reason 3: because the copyright has finished and we don't have to pay anyone for its use.

I don't use it, unlike many others that claim they do but actually skip big portions of it, I actually read and study the Bible, I do it because I can understand the modern language versions of the Bible I own and use daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dravin, isn't editing the Bible, or a canon of scripture already in place, different than editing even a historical work?

If you discover, in your studies, that you left a piece of history out of your non-fictional work, by all means, edit it and add it.

If you discover, in your studies, that part of the Bible is missing, can you just add it?

Are you saying I'm confusing you because you don't see a difference while I do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically translation would mean to turn from one language into another language, so your argument would be that JS translated from nothing into something via revelation. But you don't think JS could have edited by adding or removing via revelation?

Yes, this is my point. It was done by revelation. Call it what you want. To me, "edit" seems to be implying that he made the edits based on his own understanding or opinions. I am simply trying to say he did not understand how the passages were meant by the original writer just by reading the same passages in the KJV that everyone else reads. It required revelation.

There are thousands of different interpretations for Bible passages. If he "edited" the passages based on his own understanding, the JST wouldn't be as good as any of the tranmslations out there now. Because, if you take away revelation, Joseph Smith had very little schooling and next to no understanding of ancient writings (and far less was available in the early to mid 1800s).

The intent of the original writer was given to him via revelation, so then he was therefore able to more accuratley translate the passage into English.

The KJV was available, but it was meaningless for his translation because without revelation he couldn't understand it any better than anyone else. He could have made his translation without having a copy of the KJV to edit, just as he didn't "edit" a copy of the Book of Mormon.

It was the intent of the original writer translated into English, since the original writers did not speak or write English. If he did not translate it into English, it would have been in the original language of the writers, through revelation, just like the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dravin, isn't editing the Bible, or a canon of scripture already in place, different than editing even a historical work?

If you discover, in your studies, that you left a piece of history out of your non-fictional work, by all means, edit it and add it.

If you discover, in your studies, that part of the Bible is missing, can you just add it?

Most certainly. It's a book, words on a page. One can argue the validity of any such edit but one can certainly do it. You seem to be investing into the idea of editing that it is more than the changing of an extant work. You seem to feel that editing has some sort of inherent validity of the edit attatched to it.

I can go through and edit a Bible to include modern punctuation and spelling. I can also go through and edit it by replacing every vowel with the letter "z" and replacing every third chapter with Shakespeare. Both are editing the Bible.

Are you saying I'm confusing you because you don't see a difference while I do?

No, I'm saying I don't see how the fact one shouldn't just go changing the bible for kicks is relevant. In the second case I'm confuse because you were arguing that he didn't edit the KJV and then turned around and conceded he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the second case I'm confuse because you were arguing that he didn't edit the KJV and then turned around and conceded he did.

Perhaps I'm wrong -- I haven't followed the thread that closely and don't intend to go reread it -- but I thought his point was that Joseph Smith translated the Bible. Someone objected to this terminology, claiming that the Prophet didn't translate it. I pointed out that the Prophet called it a "translation", and it is still referred to as such in the LDS edition of the scriptures. The thread then took a rather silly turn, with people arguing what constituted "translation".

I'm all for linguistic precision, except when the Lord or his servants use a word in a non-standard way or context and someone feels the need to prove his brilliance by calling the prophets or the Lord to task for their shameless abuse of the Queen's English. At that point, I pretty much lose all sympathy for the complainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most certainly. It's a book, words on a page. One can argue the validity of any such edit but one can certainly do it. You seem to be investing into the idea of editing that it is more than the changing of an extant work. You seem to feel that editing has some sort of inherent validity of the edit attatched to it.

Since we're speaking of an "edit" of the Bible, I agree that I assumed this much. I did assume needed inherent validity in any translation of the Bible if one claims to be a prophet. I also assumed that everyone who discusses an "edit" of the Bible on this forum would also assume that much.

I can go through and edit a Bible to include modern punctuation and spelling. I can also go through and edit it by replacing every vowel with the letter "z" and replacing every third chapter with Shakespeare. Both are editing the Bible.

Again, my assumption is that any edits made to a Bible would need to be accurate, not just popular opinion or most obvious interpretation by one claiming to be a prophet. Joseph Smith claims, as a prophet, his "edits" are inspired of God and eternally true. I also assumed that anyone involved in this discussion would be able to see that I assumed an edit of a Bible needs to be inspired by God.

Next time I'll try not to assume anything.

No, I'm saying I don't see how the fact one shouldn't just go changing the bible for kicks is relevant. In the second case I'm confuse because you were arguing that he didn't edit the KJV and then turned around and conceded he did.

Changing the Bible for kicks is NOT relevant, and is precisely why I assumed all involved would not need to discuss that.

I did backtrack on "edit" because I was taken for a loop that "edits for kicks" (as you say) was even part of the discussion. As I said, I assumed that "edits for kicks" didn't need to be part of this discussion, so therefore I assumed they weren't. When I discovered they were, I had to agree (or turn around and concede) that a person "can edit the Bible for kicks" if they want to.

It is not what I had in mind, nor was I expecting it to be part of the discussion, and is why I originally said he did not simply edit the Bible, that there was more to it. Later, I agreed that he did "edit" the Bible since anyone can technically edit the Bible "for kicks." I was trying to say it was a translation from revelation, not just an edit, which I explained in my previous post.

Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're speaking of an "edit" of the Bible, I agree that I assumed this much. I did assume needed inherent validity in any translation of the Bible if one claims to be a prophet. I also assumed that everyone who discusses an "edit" of the Bible on this forum would also assume that much.

No we're not. We're (that is to say I am) speaking about the definition of the word edit. To edit something does not imply inherent validity which is why it's not relevant. Joseph Smith's edit of the KJV was valid but not because it's inherent in the word edit.

Changing the Bible for kicks is NOT relevant, and is precisely why I assumed all involved would not need to discuss that.

You are the one who brought it up between the two of us. That is why it confused me, here we are discussing the definition of the word edit and you start talking about how if one is going to edit the Bible they better not be doing it 'for kicks'.

It is not what I had in mind, nor was I expecting it to be part of the discussion, and is why I originally said he did not simply edit the Bible, that there was more to it.

And I agreed that while edit described what he did it was lacking in truly communicating what took place because it was generic term for the process ala automobile compared to 2009 Honda Civic Coupe.

The confusion on my part stemmed from it seeming like you conceding it qualifies as an edit and then arguing it wasn't an edit. It wasn't clear to me that you were conceding it was an edit but that the term is lacking.

I'm all for linguistic precision, except when the Lord or his servants use a word in a non-standard way or context and someone feels the need to prove his brilliance by calling the prophets or the Lord to task for their shameless abuse of the Queen's English. At that point, I pretty much lose all sympathy for the complainer.

I'm fine with translation. I was having a nice side discussion on the meaning of the word edit. I suspect I got sucked into things. A classic case of "You aren't agreeing with me therefore you must be espousing all of the opinions and positions of the other people not agreeing with me." I have no problem with calling it a translation, I just think that the word edit does not preclude large changes or the insertion of revelation into extant scripture.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with translation. I was having a nice side discussion on the meaning of the word edit. I suspect I got sucked into things. A classic case of "You aren't agreeing with me therefore you must be espousing all of the opinions and positions of the other people not agreeing with me." I have no problem with calling it a translation, I just think that the word edit does not preclude large changes or the insertion of revelation into extant scripture.

Nah. I wasn't referring to you at all, Dravin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original question, the LDS Bible Dictionary has this to share:

With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars. However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions. The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For me, the advantage of using the King James Version is that it is the same version quoted in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. For instance, by stating that one of the priesthood duties is to "confirm the church by the laying on of hands", Joseph clarifies what Paul was doing when he was also "confirming the church" - even though this is an odd phrase, and we would refer to it today as confirming members into the church.

I suppose some of that can be overcome if we used proper quotation marks or used a standard way to document the footnotes as scripture quotes, pseudo-quotes, and related verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Okay - so one definition of translate is "to put in simpler terms" or "to express in different words" but the general understanding of what translate means as it relates to the Bible is the process of converting it from one language into another language and in that sense "translation" doesn't really express what Joseph Smith did.

A definition of "edit" is "to revise or correct, as a manuscript" and that seems to better express, I think, what happened but I see that you are right, either could be technically correct.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well there you go. You disagree with someone so rather than engage in the issue, you dismiss them as whinning. Clever and oh so helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the RLDS term is smartest: "The Inspired Version".

I like the idea of Joseph being an editor and/or reviser. It's an interesting role for a prophet. Christ, after all, dictated the revising of the Nephites' record when he gave his sermon at the temple, as they had forgotten to add the words of Samuel the Lamanite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share