Why do the LDS use the KJV?

[Steve Noel]

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?

 

[Sunday21]

I personally use KJV but don't ask me what is going on in most of Acts! Thanks for your respectful questions. Nice to have you here!

[NeedleinA]

Here is a link from lds.org that might shed some light on your question. This not an official statement, as it says, but is helpful "guidance".

I personally use the KJV only. I remember being in a religious book store one time, not LDS, and looking through all the different versions of bibles they had. On one row itself, it seemed like there where 100 different "Bibles". Versions for any age or lifestyle. Two that stood out:
1. What I would call a Nature/Hippie version
2. Teenage talk version. It read like teenager/high school kids would talk to one another

Though we use the KJV, we use a slightly different version of it. Slightly different in that there are tons of study guides included in the LDS version. Footnotes & Chapter headings to give additional clarifications, definitions, and scriptures that tie into the theme. There is also a Bible Dictionary & Topical Guide with massive information. 

Edit/Added: From the cover sheet of my KJV Bible, "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
 

Edited April 2, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Steve Noel]

28 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I personally use KJV but don't ask me what is going on in most of Acts! Thanks for your respectful questions. Nice to have you here!

Lol, do you not know what's going on in Acts because of the old English of the KJV or for some other reason?

[Sunday21]

17 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Lol, do you not know what's going on in Acts because of the old English of the KJV or for some other reason?

I don't know! Too befuddled to answer the question!

[Vort]

1 hour 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?

Needle's link is as good an answer as any.

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Do you personally read a translation that uses modern English?

The KJV is modern English. You can tell because when you read it, the words make sense.

I personally use the KJV in my English Bible study. Once you get used to its phraseology, it is simply more powerful and more beautiful than any other translation. I used to dabble in the Jerusalem Bible, which I really liked. I tend to make use of blueletterbible.org when I don't understand the KJV (or when I want to explore an idea). Frankly, I don't trust many other translations. I perceive them as having an agenda and biasing their wording based on that agenda.

[Sunday21]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Needle's link is as good an answer as any.

The KJV is modern English. You can tell because when you read it, the words make sense.

I personally use the KJV in my English Bible study. Once you get used to its phraseology, it is simply more powerful and more beautiful than any other translation. I used to dabble in the Jerusalem Bible, which I really liked. I tend to make use of blueletterbible.org when I don't understand the KJV (or when I want to explore an idea). Frankly, I don't trust many other translations. I perceive them as having an agenda and biasing their wording based on that agenda.

Good tips. Next time my gospel doctrine class is doing the bible I will try these other translations. Trying to understand the New Testament was miserable for me. What was wth that Paul guy? Take a course in Writing for Dummies already!

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, 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?

I have more than twenty English, three French, and two Italian translations in my library, along with German and Spanish versions (two languages I speak little). I "use" the AV by preference for a of couple reasons, not least of which is that it is the official English version. My library includes both Hebrew and Greek tomes, as well (with interlinear annotations). I use them for clarification and alternative understanding. As you know, we have additional scripture in our canon. Each of these includes quotations from the AV, and, if we were to take a different translation, it would require that we alter these scriptures, as well.

In addition, the prophet of the Restoration (as well as others who've been the senior Apostle of Jesus Christ) told us that the AV is the least likely to have been translated with a doctrinal bias.

Moreover, while we do not use it as our Bible of choice, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST, aka, the "Inspired Version") is a painstaking revision of the Bible (not the words of the Book, but of the ancient sources — visions and other revelations — by prophets of old) undertaken for two reasons: 1) to restore these ancient truths; 2) to train a prophet who lacked a role model, as so many of those had. The JST was based on the AV, and there is no reasonable means to undertake this decades-long effort for a different translation.

Finally, the library of our modern "epistles" (conference and other speeches and writings) is based on the AV. Much of this library has been translated into dozens of other languages, frequently with direct translation from the AV to make the meaning clear.

In sum, I can find little advantage in moving to a newer translation, and much to value in using the AV.

Lehi

Edited April 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[Ironhold]

My main set of scriptures is a "quad" that contains the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. 

However, I do keep a parallel Bible (four different translations presented next to each other) handy for discussions. 

[prisonchaplain]

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.  When I post here, as a non-LDS perspective, I go back and forth between using the familiar KJV and modern translations. I'm sold on the accuracy and clarity of more modern versions, but respectful of the KJV--especially it's inclusion of the longer ending of Mark, containing some very pro-Pentecostal verses.  :-)

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Needle's link is as good an answer as any.

The KJV is modern English. You can tell because when you read it, the words make sense.

I personally use the KJV in my English Bible study. Once you get used to its phraseology, it is simply more powerful and more beautiful than any other translation. I used to dabble in the Jerusalem Bible, which I really liked. I tend to make use of blueletterbible.org when I don't understand the KJV (or when I want to explore an idea). Frankly, I don't trust many other translations. I perceive them as having an agenda and biasing their wording based on that agenda.

Why do you distrust other translations? Have you read much about this?

[Steve Noel]

55 minutes ago, 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.  When I post here, as a non-LDS perspective, I go back and forth between using the familiar KJV and modern translations. I'm sold on the accuracy and clarity of more modern versions, but respectful of the KJV--especially it's inclusion of the longer ending of Mark, containing some very pro-Pentecostal verses.  :-)

I am with the A/G as well. You may be interested to know that there is a recent book that apparently makes a strong case for the longer ending of Mark being authentic. 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Original-Ending-Mark-Authenticity-ebook/dp/B00OU6OB78

This is what Craig Evans, a well respected N.T. scholar, wrote about this book:

"Nicholas Lunn has thoroughly shaken my views concerning the ending of the Gospel of Mark. As in the case of most gospel scholars, I have for my whole career held that Mark 16:9-20, the so-called 'Long Ending,' was not original. But in his well-researched and carefully argued book, Lunn succeeds in showing just how flimsy that position really is. The evidence for the early existence of this ending, if not for its originality, is extensive and quite credible. I will not be surprised if Lunn reverses scholarly opinion on this important question. I urge scholars not to dismiss his arguments without carefully considering this excellent book. The Original Ending of Mark is must reading for all concerned with the gospels and early tradition concerned with the resurrection story." 

[Guest]

I personally own only the KJV in English, but I will reference several other versions online.  I also read comparable versions in Spanish, French, German, Korean, and Russian.

The reason we use it is that Joseph Smith stated in his day that it was the most accurate version in English that was available at the time.  And he also believed that the language had a beauty to it that resembled the Heavenly tongue.  Having grown up with it myself, I'm used to it.  And I do share his opinion on the language.  There really is a beauty to it.  People just don't write like this anymore.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's worth noting that LDS-church-owned Brigham Young University is currently working on a multi-volume New Testament commentary.  Their project page carefully avoids using the word "translation", but it nonetheless promises a "new rendition of the Greek texts of the New Testament books."

In addition to the other issues with departing from the KJV that have been noted - a lot of LDS concepts/teachings are referred to by phrases that are peculiar to the King James Bible.  "More sure word of prophecy" and "calling and election made sure" are two that come readily to mind.  Moreover, the Book of Mormon's English text (I believe) draws heavily on the KJV.  Several parts of it directly quote (with some differences, but an enormous amount of similarity) from KJV renderings of Isaiah, Malachi, or other Old Testament prophets; and other parts aren't direct quotations but are clearly translated in such a way as to evoke other Biblical passages (compare, for example, Moroni 7 with 1 Corinthians 13).

To follow up on Vort's statement--I don't view all Bible translations with suspicion; but I've heard some pretty troubling things about--for example--the NIV.  And I'm not generally a fan of the sort of "higher criticism" that assumes--for example--that Isaiah couldn't possibly have foreseen the Babylonian captivity, so any segments of the book of Isaiah that seem to mention it must be post-exilic additions

Edited April 2, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Steve Noel]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's worth noting that LDS-church-owned Brigham Young University is currently working on a multi-volume New Testament commentary.  Their project page carefully avoids using the word "translation", but it nonetheless promises a "new rendition of the Greek texts of the New Testament books."

In addition to the other issues with departing from the KJV that have been noted - a lot of LDS concepts/teachings are referred to by phrases that are peculiar to the King James Bible.  "More sure word of prophecy" and "calling and election made sure" are two that come readily to mind.  Moreover, the Book of Mormon's English text (I believe) draws heavily on the KJV.  Several parts of it directly quote (with some differences, but an enormous amount of similarity) from KJV renderings of Isaiah, Malachi, or other Old Testament prophets; and other parts aren't direct quotations but are clearly translated in such a way as to evoke other Biblical passages (compare, for example, Moroni 7 with 1 Corinthians 13).

To follow up on Vort's statement--I don't view all Bible translations with suspicion; but I've heard some pretty troubling things about--for example--the NIV.  And I'm not generally a fan of the sort of "higher criticism" that assumes--for example--that Isaiah couldn't possibly have foreseen the Babylonian captivity, so any segments of the book of Isaiah that seem to mention it must be post-exilic additions

Thank you for letting me know about this project at BYU. That is very interesting. There is a ton of misinformation out there about modern translations. I agree with you about the many erroneous conclusions of the schools of higher criticism. I recently joined another LDS discussion forum and was surprised to see several Latter-day Saints believing that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament. As I interacted there someone indicated that this forum would be a better place to interact with more orthodox Latter-day Saints.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, speaking for myself I'm open to the idea of scribal additions/modifications to Biblical books and even, sometimes, alternate theories of authorship (I tend to agree, for example, that some of the NT authors drew on a now-missing "Q source".   And it seems pretty unlikely, at the end of Deuteronomy, that it's actually Moses writing about his own death in the past tense).  But I think such conclusions should be based on something more than "a person can't know the future".  Seems odd to me, that some Christians would be willing to rely on a Biblical translation produced by a bunch of scholars who actively deny any divine role in the Bible's authorship.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Steve Noel]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, speaking for myself I'm open to the idea of scribal additions/modifications to Biblical books (I tend to agree, for example, that some of the NT authors drew on a now-missing "Q source".   And it seems pretty unlikely, at the end of Deuteronomy, that it's actually Moses writing about his own death in the past tense).  But I think such conclusions should be based on something more than "a person can't know the future".  Seems odd to me, that some Christians would be willing to rely on a Biblical translation produced by a bunch of scholars who actively deny any divine role in the Bible's authorship.

What translations are you referring to?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm talking more about higher criticism at the moment than a particular biblical translation.  Apologies that I didn't draw the distinction more carefully.

[zil]

9 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Good tips. Next time my gospel doctrine class is doing the bible I will try these other translations. Trying to understand the New Testament was miserable for me. What was wth that Paul guy? Take a course in Writing for Dummies already!

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.

[Sunday21]

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I have more than twenty English, three French, and two Italian translations in my library, along with German, Spanish versions (two languages I speak little). I "use" the AV by preference for a couple reasons, not least of which is that it is the official English version. My library includes both Hebrew and Greek tomes, as well (with interlinear annotations). I use them for clarification and alternative understanding. As you know, we have additional scripture in our canon. Each of these includes quotations from the AV, and, if we were to take a different translation, it would require that we alter these scriptures, as well.

In addition, the prophet of the Restoration (as well as others who've been the senior Apostle of Jesus Christ) told us that the AV is the least likely to have been translated with a doctrinal bias.

Moreover, while we do not use it as our Bible of choice, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST, aka, the "Inspired Version") is a painstaking revision of the Bible (not the words of the Book, but of the ancient sources — visions and other revelations — by prophets of old) undertaken for two reasons: 1) to restore these ancient truths; 2) to train a prophet who lacked a role model, as so many of those had. The JST was based on the AV, and there is no reasonable means to undertake this decades-long effort for a different translation.

Finally, the library of our modern "epistles" (conference and other speeches and writings) is based on the AV. Much of this library has been translated into dozens of other languages, frequently with direct translation from the AV to make the meaning clear.

In sum, I can find little advantage in moving to a newer translation, and much to value in using the AV.

Lehi

[Sunday21]

50 minutes ago, 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.

Thanks. I will have to give this method a try.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sunday21

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Why do you distrust other translations?

As I wrote, I tend to perceive a bias in many other translations.

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Have you read much about this?

If you mean have I read many other translations, the answer is no. I have read in several others, but I have never read a non-KJV Bible all the way through.

If you mean have I read so-called "experts" give their opinions about various translations, the answer is again no. I have read a few. I tend to give little credence to Bible "scholars" whose scholarship consists of studying the orthodox ideas about what the Bible should mean, and even less to the "scholars" who, as JAG noted, engage in the so-called "higher criticism".

[prisonchaplain]

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Modern-English-Version-MEV-Bible/

Edited April 3, 2016 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Vort]

2 hours ago, 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.

As valuable to me, especially for Isaiah (but also for Paul), is simple repetition and volume. The twentieth time I read Isaiah, it simply made a lot more sense and I understood it a lot better than the first time. Same with Paul.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Vort

[prisonchaplain]

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.