Article 8 And Bible Translations

[wild_card_2020]

Hi all, new member here. My new girlfriend is LDS and I'm trying to understand more about her faith, but her LDS education and background is limited pretty much to obeying the rules of the church, and lacks a doctrinal understanding. So I've done a lot of Googling and am reading a lot online, but I'm finding it difficult to find authoritative answers.

Which leads to me being here -- to try to get a better understanding of her faith and its foundations. One item in particular has eluded me, to my growing frustration: Article 8 (the Bible is the word of God insofar as it is correctly translated). Despite a lot of searching and reading, so far I haven't found a reference on where, specifically, the LDS church considers the Bible to be incorrectly translated or corrupted.

As clarification, I'm not looking for information about the minor variations or differences between translations, nor am I interested in comparisons with non-scholarly translations such as the Living Bible. What I'm looking for is where the LDS teaches that the Bible has been mis-translated or corrupted from the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts in a manner that is doctrinally significant.

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to ask, and if that is the case, guidance on where I should go. In any case, can someone please save me from more mostly-fruitless hours Googling and reading? Thanks!

Adam

[Maureen]

...As clarification, I'm not looking for information about the minor variations or differences between translations, nor am I interested in comparisons with non-scholarly translations such as the Living Bible. What I'm looking for is where the LDS teaches that the Bible has been mis-translated or corrupted from the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts in a manner that is doctrinally significant.

Welcome Adam and excellent question. I've been snooping but couldn't really find anything to answer your question. May I suggest taking your question to this website. Hopefully when you click on it you'll see "Email Us Your Question". I would ask them and then come back and let us know what they say. Good luck!

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

M.

[sixpacktr]

You may want to try to get a hold of some of the LDS scriptures that have the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in them so that you can see where we get that idea. Yes, we use the KJV of the Bible, but the Joseph Smith Translation fills in a lot of blanks.

I'm sure your girlfriend has a copy of that that you can read thru...

[prisonchaplain]

My impression, just from reading posts here, and looking at the Articles of Faith, is that they are not any specific passages that are called into question. Rather, the process of translation and copying allegedly has led to potential discrepancies. Also, I believe Joseph Smith said that there are some precious truths that have been lost. So, the Bible is considered Holy Scripture, and is part of an open canon, and is included amongst the LDS "Standard Works." Yet, it is not seen as complete, and translations of it are not weighed as inerrent.

The primary difference then, when compared with other Christian churches, is that the canon of Scripture remains open (thus the other three LDS Scriptues, as well as the on-going revelations by living prophets), and the latter revelations are seen as explicating the Bible (much as Christians in general believe the NT explains the OT).

[a-train]

The answer is simple:

Look at the footnotes of an LDS edition of the Bible.

Joseph Smith commenced to demonstrate instances of correction throughout the Bible text and LDS editions of the Bible contain much of this in the footnotes and appendix. While the text throughout the LDS edition is simply KJV, footnotes will show shorter corrections at the bottom of the page. Such corrections are marked 'JST' signifying 'Joseph Smith Translation'. Words not found in the KJV text are in italics.

Excerpts too lengthy to be included in the footnotes are found in the 'Study Helps' section at the end of the edition under 'Joseph Smith Translation'.

For an example of all this, look at the account of Paul's first vision in Acts 9:7 which says: 'And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' Now, compare this with Acts 22:9 wherein Paul recounts the vision saying: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.'

Now look at that. Did the men see and not hear or hear and not see? Now look at footnote 'a' in Acts 9:7. It says: 'JST Acts 9: 7 And they who were journeying with him saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spake to him.'

Hopefully this helps. If you don't have an LDS edition of the Bible go to www.lds.org for an html version under 'Gospel Library'/'Scriptures'.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[wild_card_2020]

Okay, I'm aware of the JST edition. I understand it aims to correct and add to the Bible. However, the JST edition is claimed to be a work of divine inspiration, not a translation of ancient texts. What I'm talking about is Bibles that are (or at least claim to be) a translation of the original Greek/Armenian/Hebrew.

Article 8 implies these translations are inaccurate. I am so far unable to find a single example of doctrinal significance. So what I'm looking for is examples where the LDS church claims translations of the ancient Greek/Armenian/Hebrew texts are incorrect, in a fashion that is doctrinally significant. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

[the_jason]

Okay, I'm aware of the JST edition. I understand it aims to correct and add to the Bible. However, the JST edition is claimed to be a work of divine inspiration, not a translation of ancient texts. What I'm talking about is Bibles that are (or at least claim to be) a translation of the original Greek/Armenian/Hebrew.

Article 8 implies these translations are inaccurate. I am so far unable to find a single example of doctrinal significance. So what I'm looking for is examples where the LDS church claims translations of the ancient Greek/Armenian/Hebrew texts are incorrect, in a fashion that is doctrinally significant. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

I'm not sure the Church has ever mentioned a specific translation as being inaccurate. If there are, for example, 50 different translations of the Bible then they can't all possibly be right, for they all differ from another. I think the purpose of Article 8 is to point out that there is but one correct translation of the Bible, and that the Church recognizes the correct translation as the word of God.

[Maureen]

...I think the purpose of Article 8 is to point out that there is but one correct translation of the Bible, and that the Church recognizes the correct translation as the word of God.

May I point out that there are many languages, so one translation of the Bible is not reasonable.

M.

[a-train]

Okay, I'm aware of the JST edition. I understand it aims to correct and add to the Bible. However, the JST edition is claimed to be a work of divine inspiration, not a translation of ancient texts. What I'm talking about is Bibles that are (or at least claim to be) a translation of the original Greek/Armenian/Hebrew.

Article 8 implies these translations are inaccurate. I am so far unable to find a single example of doctrinal significance. So what I'm looking for is examples where the LDS church claims translations of the ancient Greek/Armenian/Hebrew texts are incorrect, in a fashion that is doctrinally significant. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

The 'JST' DOES point out the various translation issues Joseph Smith brought forth. True, many are not doctrinal per se, but many are. Furthermore, Joseph DID possess texts from many languages (both ancient and modern) from which he made the JST. In other words, he didn just take a KJV and mark it up. He literally studied Greek and Hebrew and had texts and lexicons and so forth in his process. Furthermore, he consulted professionals in his studies of foreign language.

Here is another example that many would say IS doctrinal:

KJV John 1:18: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

JST: 'And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.'

Simply look through the JST, you'll see a lot.

-a-train

[Maureen]

A little information regarding Bible translations:

Why So Many Translations? The Present State of English Bible Translation

By: Michael H. Burer , Th.M., Ph.D.

Abstract

Step into any bookstore and you are immediately confronted with an abundance of English Bible translations. Several questions will immediately come to mind: How did this situation come about? What is out there? How should I use all of these translations? By understanding the different translation philosophies which undergird various translations and the strengths and weaknesses of each philosophy, the believer can profitably use different translations to gain greater trust in God's Word, to understand God's Word better, and in turn to live a life which pleases Him…

Why does this situation exist?

• There are different translation philosophies at work.

o Functional Equivalence: The translation of one language into another retaining as much as possible the original forms of the first language.

o Dynamic equivalence: The translation of one language into another with a goal of translating the meaning of the original without regard to the forms of the first language…

Why does this situation exist?

• There is a very heated battle about which is more appropriate for Bible translation. There is a place for both, though, and their advantages and disadvantages should be carefully understood.

• English is changing as all languages do.

o All languages are in a continuous state of flux.

o All translations will eventually be out of date.

o The advent of the internet and all its related applications has created a greater state of flux than in the past.

• English Bible translations need to change as well. (Judges 16:7 in NIV)

How should we respond to this situation?

• Our tendency is to exalt one translation over another.

• • King-James-Only movement

• Instead we should recognize our bounty of riches and use it accordingly.

• Dynamic equivalence translations are good for those who know little or nothing about the Gospel or the Bible.

• Functional equivalence translations are good for those who understand biblical concepts and want to understand more carefully the exact wording of the text.

• Dynamic equivalence translations are good for situations where the public reading and comprehension of scripture has a prominent place.

• Functional equivalence translations are good for situations where the details of the text are the central focus.

• Recognize that the multiplicity of translations can increase our confidence in the Scriptures.

• Use this bounty of wealth to your advantage.

• Be gracious, but be educational.

Conclusion

• There is a sense in which every translation falls short of perfectly communicating the original text underneath it.

• More importantly, there is a sense in which every translation contains the word of God and accurately communicates its sense.

• Be aware of what is out there and how the translations differ, but more than that trust the one you have and listen for God’s word to speak to you from its pages.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3197

M.

[Blessed]

In my church we call the JST the Inspired Version. The way I understand the IV came to be is that the Lord felt that from when the Bible was first recorded many "plain and precious truths" were removed by evil men trying to corrupt the Word of God for their own earthly pleasures. The IV was to bring back those truths, but sadly JS did not finish the work.

[sharyll]

You can look at the scriptures at scriptures.lds.org. There are copies of all the scriptures and I believe they are footnoted and cross referenced. Hope this helps in your search. Another place to read about the basics of the faith is www.mormon.org. Hope these sights are helpful

Sharyl

[the_jason]

May I point out that there are many languages, so one translation of the Bible is not reasonable.

This is true, but I was referring to the English language. There are several English translations, but only one can be correct. There may also be several translations in Spanish, Japanese, Italian, etc., but only one translation for each of these languages can be correct as well.

Sorry for not clarifying.

[Dr T]

With respect to languages, the rending from one to another can focus on various aspects of what was said/written. If you speak more than one language, you should be aware of the "We can use this word or that word/phrase" to express the intended meaning. It is part of translation. Sometimes thing can be translated inconsistently, and I would have a problem with that, but if it can express the same, basic message, with different words, without dramatically altering the meaning, then I would not consider that false.

[prisonchaplain]

This is true, but I was referring to the English language. There are several English translations, but only one can be correct. There may also be several translations in Spanish, Japanese, Italian, etc., but only one translation for each of these languages can be correct as well.

Sorry for not clarifying.

I disagree with this. Most of the English translations are very reliable. There is no one "inspired translation." There are a few passages that linguistics experts wrestle with. However, none of the controversies effect. doctrine. I have been led to believe that all the LDS Church publishes the KJV, there is no singular translation that is considered above all others by the church. Please feel free to correct my perceptions, though.

[sixpacktr]

Last night I was watching "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS and it was about the Bible and those that translated it and made it available to the general public. They particularly told the story of William Tindale, and the persecution he faced all because he wanted to translate the bible from the original Greek, Latin, etc., to common English. It was fascinating and I was filled with gratitude to this man, and others like Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, etc., for their courage and at times life sacrifice so that I could have this wonderful canon of scripture.

That being said, I also believe that a lot of the plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible, some because of translating error (I speak another language, and sometimes you just can't translate the entire feeling of a word into English or vice versa) and some, I believe, by calculating translators because it didn't fit into what they felt the gospel should be so they omitted it or changed it (kind of the "drive by media" of the ancient world!).

That is why I really appreciate the BOM, the D&C, the P of GP and the Joseph Smith translation because it fills in those gaps, and in my opinion supports the Bible.

I know that there are a lot of churches that believe we don't believe in the Bible (I was in the Bible Belt for many years, and that was thrown at me because I had my "Golden Bible"), but in my opinion, we LDS are the among the biggest believers in the Bible that there are, because we believe its message of God's love for us and his providing us a way out of eternal misery.

[the_jason]

I disagree with this. Most of the English translations are very reliable. There is no one "inspired translation." There are a few passages that linguistics experts wrestle with. However, none of the controversies effect. doctrine. I have been led to believe that all the LDS Church publishes the KJV, there is no singular translation that is considered above all others by the church. Please feel free to correct my perceptions, though.

We're not talking about scripture being reliable. We're talking about correctness. The KJV isn't even completely correct, but the MOST correct, which is why Joseph Smith was called to translate the Bible as well. As he was not able to finish the translation due to his untimely death, we cannot use his translation in the church today, therefore we continue to use the KJV.

I have not said that other translations have no truth whatsoever or that they are not inspired, because they most certainly are. However, if they all differ from each other, how can they all be correct? It's not possible.

[Maureen]

...but only one can be correct.

Why? The English language has evolved through the centuries; English has changed immensely since the KJV was written. If the written word of the Bible cannot be comprehended, due to language barriers, how does that help mankind understand God's word?

M.

[Dr T]

Hi the jason,

Why do hold the KJV as the "most correct"? Have you compared other translations? What about the New American Standard Version (NASB), etc.? Have you delved into the differences and why one is "better" then the other? Just curious.

[Maureen]

...However, if they all differ from each other, how can they all be correct? It's not possible.

Here are 2 versions of John 3:16:

KJV

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

and the NET Bible:

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Are these so different that they don't say the same thing?

M.

[the_jason]

Forget it.

[Dr T]

Sir,

I hope I didn't put you off. I was really just asking why and if you've looked into why. Sorry if it sounded offensive.

[wild_card_2020]

KJV John 1:18: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

JST: 'And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.'

I'm not convinced this passage is an issue of doctrinal significance. While there are several textual variants of this passage, to say this is an issue of significance one would have to ignore or misinterpret many other passages in the Bible, and specifically John, that discuss the relationship between God and Jesus.

What's more relevant to me here is that the JST passage itself is apparently a unique translation. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that (as far as I can determine) no other Bibles have any mention of being saved in this passage. The reason for this, it seems to me, is other Bibles are using one or another variant of the ancient Greek as a source for their translations, whereas the origins of the Joseph Smith Translation are the KJV and Joseph Smith's personal revelation, not the Greek/Hebrew texts.

At this point I admit to being somewhat lost. Returning to Article 8 again, it says the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it is accurately translated. Does the LDS church accept the authenticity and accuracy of the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts? If so, how does the church reconcile the difference between the original Greek and the addition made in the JST edition?

Adam

[anniem]

It seems to me that the KJV of the Bible has the type of language that LDS equates with "scripture", and of course it is the official version published by the church. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the most correct. We're used to it, Joseph Smith translated portions of it, and it contains essential truths. I've heard other versions of the Bible quoted in meetings broadcast from SLC, however, and the wording can be just as beautiful and sometimes more clear.

Anyway, I think the reason no one is really answering your main question is because no one here really knows. This is a good question for a professor of ancient scripture at BYU or something. Maybe one would say it was translated correctly but could use some illumination and clarification in the latter days.

[wild_card_2020]

That being said, I also believe that a lot of the plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible, some because of translating error (I speak another language, and sometimes you just can't translate the entire feeling of a word into English or vice versa) and some, I believe, by calculating translators because it didn't fit into what they felt the gospel should be so they omitted it or changed it (kind of the "drive by media" of the ancient world!).

How does it serve God's purpose to allow His word to be lost and misrepresented in such a fashion for 2000 years? (Which of course is no time at all to God as he exists at all times and forever, but represents about a third of human history and the vast majority of human beings who have lived.) Why would He allow or want His word to be so corrupted? Especially, so soon after having brought His word to us in Jesus's life?

I know the Bible is composed of a selected number of texts; that many other Christian writings exist that were not put in the Bible. So I can buy the argument that the Bible isn't all of God's word. But that it has been seriously compromised simply doesn't make sense to me. How do I make sense of the argument that the Bible has so many mistakes and omissions? How could this serve Him?

Anyway, I think the reason no one is really answering your main question is because no one here really knows. This is a good question for a professor of ancient scripture at BYU or something.

Okay, I picked Article 8 to start with because I thought it would be easy to research. The Articles of Faith are (according to my understanding) a major element of LDS faith. So it seems to me that any statement made in them ought to be well-documented. Yet I have not found an answer to the question: where does the LDS church consider the Bible to be mistranslated? I've been told to look at the JST. But the JST isn't a translation of the Greek/Hebrew, it's a work that Joseph Smith wrote based on the KJV and his personal revelation. I'm looking for the passages where the LDS church says the translations of the original are incorrect.

Am I mistaken in my assumption that the church believes the original Greek and Hebrew to be accurate and authentic?

Adam