Why do the LDS use the KJV?

[NightSG]

20 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Is there a reason that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still uses the King James Version of the Bible?

Because Webster's Dictionary, while it would have led to a very comprehensive religion, is even more bland to read than II Chronicles.

And Animal Farm hadn't been written yet.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/2/2016 at 0:54 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I still remember with fondness the semester I spent in junior high school with a couple of Jehovah's Witness students, doing a lunch time Bible study. They agreed to use the New International Version, rather than their New World Translation. We basically sparred over various topics, like the deity of Christ, the eternal nature of hell, etc. 

I had a very similar experience in high-school with some Jehovah's Witness buddies. Except they didn't agree to use anything by their New World Translation, so we sparred over translation values too.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/2/2016 at 5:40 PM, zil said:

Sunday21, FWIW, and it may not be this way for everyone, but I've found that for both Paul and Isaiah, the longer I read (in a single setting) the more it makes sense.  For Paul, I start to adapt to his sentence structures and I don't have to work so hard to puzzle out what he's saying.  For Isaiah, well, I can't really explain it, I just start to understand it after a while.  The Spirit is definitely involved.

FWIW.

One of the keys I had to beginning to understand Isaiah was following the concept of likening it to our day. It's hard to be in an in depth theological debate like I get into sometimes on this forum and then not see things differently when reading Isaiah. The Spirit, surely, is involved too, as that is the only true proclaimed way to understand it.

[Guest]

Steve,

It was mentioned before, but... The LDS edition of the Bible, is not just a stand alone version of the KJV.  The footnoted, topical guide, study aids, maps & gazetteer, are all quite a bit more thorough than other editions of the Bible no matter which version.  So, if the OP was a commentary of our limiting our understanding of the Bible -- hardly.

Not only do we have additional study aids that include alternate translations in footnotes and end works, but we are perfectly free to utilize whatever other versions of the Bible there are available.  But as a standard, we want one book that we go to for common referencing.  And about once a month I hear someone mention something out of an alternate translation that is helpful.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But the common language of the KJV helps establish LDS vocabulary in theological/religious discussion.

[Blackmarch]

On 4/2/2016 at 6:29 AM, Steve Noel said:

I have a couple questions here:

Is there a reason that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still uses the King James Version of the Bible? 

Do you personally read a translation that uses modern English?

 

probably more because of standardization and traditional reasons.... however one thing i've been noticing is that the KJV does a pretty good job of bringing over the hebraisms a bit better than some of the other translations i've read.

but no i haven't done  a serious read through of other translations beyond getting comparisons for various passages. Probably something I should do.

 

On 4/3/2016 at 8:22 PM, prisonchaplain said:

The Modern English Version is an interesting one. It's only a couple years old, and relies on the same manuscripts as the KJV. Additionally, it sticks to a conservative word-for-word translation, and tries to maintain the style of the KJV.

I'll have to take a look at that one

[flameburns623]

There was an LDS book put out by Deseret for many years on this subject.

I believe the title may have been "Why The King James Version?".

I could be mistaken either regarding the title; OR that a book, by that title, was written by an LDS author.

Perhaps someone else knows.

My reason for preferring the KJV is that acceptance of modern translations implicitly involves acceptance of a scientistic, secularist view of Revelation.

This almost imnediately--within one to three generations--undermines the historic foundational distinctives of any congregation which adopts modern translations.

Within one to three generations after this, change agents subvert the direction of the sect or denomination for their own purposes, usually to use that church's resources as an instrument for pursuing public policies and anti-traditional cultural change. 

This in turn erodes the membership base of such a church, who feel their values and beliefs affronted.

Who  resent what by that time has morphed into a purely secular religion, a mere mouthpiece and tool for cynical power brokers.

The use of traditional hymnody;  traditional Scripture; a faith-affirming self-understanding; a formal set of traditions; all come together to create a muscular and healthy Faith which can weather both personal crises and persecution far better.

Which can stand aloof from the excesses of popular culture and speak prophetically against them.

Edited April 5, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos

[flameburns623]

Why the King James version: A series of study notes, neither treatises nor essays, dealing with certain elementary problems and specific scriptural passages (Classics in Mormon literature) J. Reuben Clark

[flameburns623]

Deleted.

Edited April 4, 2016 by flameburns623
Duplicate post

[flameburns623]

Deleted.

Edited April 4, 2016 by flameburns623
Duplicate post

[flameburns623]

Deleted.

Edited April 4, 2016 by flameburns623
Duplicate post

[prisonchaplain]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I had a very similar experience in high-school with some Jehovah's Witness buddies. Except they didn't agree to use anything by their New World Translation, so we sparred over translation values too.

Well...I was in Seattle...even the Jehovah's Witnesses are relatively liberal in my neck of the woods.  :-)

[Steve Noel]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Steve,

It was mentioned before, but... The LDS edition of the Bible, is not just a stand alone version of the KJV.  The footnoted, topical guide, study aids, maps & gazetteer, are all quite a bit more thorough than other editions of the Bible no matter which version.  So, if the OP was a commentary of our limiting our understanding of the Bible -- hardly.

Not only do we have additional study aids that include alternate translations in footnotes and end works, but we are perfectly free to utilize whatever other versions of the Bible there are available.  But as a standard, we want one book that we go to for common referencing.  And about once a month I hear someone mention something out of an alternate translation that is helpful.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But the common language of the KJV helps establish LDS vocabulary in theological/religious discussion.

This, along with several other posts here, helps me understand why. I have never read the KJV and I know that many struggle to read the Bible if they are trying to read the KJV. 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have never read the KJV and I know that many struggle to read the Bible if they are trying to read the KJV. 

I feel sorry for you. The struggle is how I wrestle the meaning from the scriptures. Yes, there are easier-to-understand translations out there and I use them from time to time. But working it out in my mind is one of the most important parts of really grasping the intent of the passage I'm working with at the moment.

The more recent versions I've read have the doctrine all presented nice'n'neasy — no thought, no reflection required: this is the way it is, and don't worry your little head about it.

That isn't how the Lord expects us to approach His words.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

I like the KJV because of how it's written.

[Vort]

19 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

This, along with several other posts here, helps me understand why. I have never read the KJV and I know that many struggle to read the Bible if they are trying to read the KJV. 

The KJV is no harder to read than Shakespeare. And just as you understand Shakespeare better the more you read him, so too with the Jacobean English of the KJV.

The supposed "difficulty" of the KJV has been vastly overstated. I don't quite understand why. Its language sings and soars. Granted, it is a bit rough or stilted at some points, but no translation is perfect.

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

The KJV is no harder to read than Shakespeare. And just as you understand Shakespeare better the more you read him, so too with the Jacobean English of the KJV.

 

Exactly. In grad school my professor said it best: "You will meet people who say they can understand Milton and read him without difficulty. Those people are liars." 

I like to think I can read at a high level-and I can-but I'm not afraid to admit that it does take me time to plow throw some of the classics. 

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. In grad school my professor said it best: "You will meet people who say they can understand Milton and read him without difficulty. Those people are liars." 

While it is sure that all poetry (well, all but doggerel) is difficult to read well, I guess I'm that liar because Milton is no more difficult than any other philosophical poet.

I love Paradise Lost and Paradise Found. They don't call him "Milton the Mormon" for nothing.

Lehi

Edited April 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

While it is sure that all poetry (well, all but doggerel) is difficult to read well, I guess I'm that liar because Milton is no more difficult than any other philosophical poet.

I love Paradise Lost and Paradise Found. They don't call him "Milton the Mormon" for nothing.

Lehi

Yes. Among other things it's his non-trinitarisim that seals the deal. I love how he was a "surly and acrimonious republican" too. (Republican in the English Civil War sense, not modern political party) 

[Guest MormonGator]

You've read the famous CS Lewis preface to Paradise Lost, right? 

[Guest MormonGator]

You've read the famous CS Lewis preface to Paradise Lost, right? 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You've read the famous CS Lewis preface to Paradise Lost, right? 

Unfortunately, no. It isn't all that famous, since I haven't even heard of it. I do most of my reading following my own discoveries and investigations. Missed this one.

Lehi

 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Unfortunately, no. It isn't all that famous, since I haven't even heard of it. I

 

It actually is. It's without question his most well known scholarly work. 

[LeSellers]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It actually is. It's without question his most well known scholarly work. 

 

Lehi

Edited April 5, 2016 by LeSellers
Dup

[LeSellers]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It actually is. It's without question his most well known scholarly work. 

Lehi

Edited April 5, 2016 by LeSellers
Trip

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It actually is. It's without question his most well known scholarly work. 

As I said, it's not famous in my house.

I've read The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and a couple of others, but Lewis is not among my go-to guys when the question is, "what shall I read next?"

Lehi