So why the KJV?

[kona0197]

So I was wondering why the Church sticks with the KJV. As far as I know the NKJV and NIV were translated from the KJV so If the Church believes the KJV to be correct that would mean the NKJV and NIV are also correct.

Sorry - the KJV is hard to read and understand...

[WANDERER]

I start with the KJV because it is the most recognised and accepted version of the Bible (authority and accuracy I guess - or as much as possible) but happily read other versions because they are easier to understand. But that's just a personal decision (no idea about the LDS decision on that one).

[checkerboy]

So I was wondering why the Church sticks with the KJV. As far as I know the NKJV and NIV were translated from the KJV so If the Church believes the KJV to be correct that would mean the NKJV and NIV are also correct.

Sorry - the KJV is hard to read and understand...

You ever played the gossip game kona? Just think of it as the KJV is closer to the source then the NKJV or NIV.

[a-train]

The Church has used the KJV since the 1830's. The phraseology, grammar, and style of the Book of Mormon translation is modeled after the KJV. Joseph Smith did extensive work in retranslating the books of the Bible, his work was with the KJV and his changes were not in vocabulary, style, grammar, etc., nor was his attempt to bring the text into congruence with modern speech, but his work was in restoring lost meaning or phrases crucial to a proper understanding of the text.

As the years have passed, footnotes, chapter headings, and study support has been developed in the LDS Church around the KJV text. Much of this work began before many of the newer versions became available. Today, while Biblical study, including various versions and original texts, is incouraged by the Church, there is no effort to recreate the heavily footnoted scripture sets we have using a more modern version.

I personally have found my Biblical study to have been greatly enhanced by utilization of the KJV. While many see the archaic language and phraseology as a burden and a distraction, I have found it deeply educational and fulfilling.

Early U.S. literacy owes great gratitude to the KJV because of its role in early American life and learning. A deep understanding of the KJV and its nuances can offer us a better view of the paradigm of early Mormonism.

While modern or alternative versions are good for study and learning, I think because of the KJV's role and involvement in LDS history, it would be difficult to properly understand the mind of Joseph Smith and the early Church without a study of it.

At the bottom line of the answer to this question, there is no mandate from the LORD with respect to an appropriate english version to be used by one and all, but the tradition now long established in the Church is to supplement the KJV text with footnotes rather than simply modify the text.

-a-train

[Maya]

I noticed that in the new finnish bible there are some words cahnges..to be closer to the language of today... it is too bad but I do not remember where it was, but the change of the word it changed the WHOLE meaning of what the sentance said to something, that made mormon belief wrong... so I stick to the older versions too!

[Guest Lexish]

As others have said we use the KJV because it was the most common when the church was restored in the 1800's; everyone was doing it!

From what I've heard, a lot of people in other countries use different bibles which were common when the church was introduced there. My oldest brother went on a mission to Quebec, Canada in 2000 and they did not use the KJV. It isn't the norm, but it is most common.

[Aelswyth]

Interestingly, there are many translations now that actually have better renderings of verses from a Mormon point of view. They really clarify things that support Mormon doctrine, which are almost completely obscured in the KJV.

Isn't one of our Articles of Faith that we believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it translated correctly? Leaps and bounds have been made in Biblical scholarship and translation work over the last few decades, much of which corrects and clarifies erroneous translations in the KJV, and bolsters the Scriptural support for LDS doctrines. I'd think the Church would be all over that! Especially since more accurate translation means it's closer to being the true word of God, just as our Articles of Faith so boldly points out.

[Moksha]

Since scriptures from the KJV are included in the BoM, perhaps that is why we don't move to and easier to read and more correctly translated version of the Bible.

Has anyone tried the Message Bible/remix version Bible? It is my favorite.

Interestingly, there are many translations now that actually have better renderings of verses from a Mormon point of view. They really clarify things that support Mormon doctrine, which are almost completely obscured in the KJV.

I have certainly found this to be true of the Message Bible. Also in Gospel Doctrine class, I was able to better grasp the meaning of the scriptures we were reading. It is nice when the Bible not read as an obscure and arcane document.

[Fiannan]

The LDS Church in Sweden does not use the King James Bible -- I don't even think there is a copy of the KJB available that is in the Swedish language. The Church uses the standard Lutheran Church of Sweden Bible.

[Maya]

Right Finnan.. same in Norway and in Finland... Have you noticed any big differences in the latest version and the one from ...80s?? I think they have changes the finnish a bit too much...but hey... it might just be that I am getting old...

BTW welcome to the Norwegean forum too.. or the finnish one if you can finnish...

I like best the one my grandfather translated... I hink it was in 40s...

[Aelswyth]

I wonder why the Church doesn't sponsor a new translation by LDS scholars? They can certainly afford it. They could retain the King Jamesian language but use current levels of scholarship to render the meaning of the Scriptures in a much truer fashion, akin to that found in other modern Bibles. That would create a perfect Bible for the Church. If the quotations in the Book of Mormon are an issue, all they would have to do is update them to match the new translation (it's still from the same Hebrew original), and voila! No problem, and a much clearer and more accurate version of the Scriptures.

[Canuck Mormon]

As others have said we use the KJV because it was the most common when the church was restored in the 1800's; everyone was doing it!

From what I've heard, a lot of people in other countries use different bibles which were common when the church was introduced there. My oldest brother went on a mission to Quebec, Canada in 2000 and they did not use the KJV. It isn't the norm, but it is most common.

Out west here, we do use the KJV. I don't remember using anything else. My brother also served in Quebec, and he never mentioned using a different translation of the Bible (except the French version).

[Maureen]

So I was wondering why the Church sticks with the KJV. As far as I know the NKJV and NIV were translated from the KJV...

Translations of books are usually done from one language to another. Since the original language of biblical books are Hebrew and Greek, those are the texts used to translate from those languages into other languages, including English.

[Maureen]

From what I've heard, a lot of people in other countries use different bibles which were common when the church was introduced there. My oldest brother went on a mission to Quebec, Canada in 2000 and they did not use the KJV. It isn't the norm, but it is most common.

The majority of Quebec are French speaking, so therefore would definitely not use the KJV, an English Bible.

[NateHowe]

We generally stick with the KJV as far as English translations go, because it's what Joseph Smith had at hand. We do not claim that the KJV is more correct or holy than any other translation, but it is doubtful that we will soon adopt a new version of the Bible as our standard. I can see a few good reasons for this:

1. KJV is well respected among most Christian denominations. Although it is not our primary goal to please them, we do want to be able to have intelligent discourse about Biblical topics using a translation that is widely accepted. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible, and no other denomination will accept it as true, so it does not function as common ground for religious discussion.

2. The Bible is not our primary source of truth. Although we are grateful for the Bible, the function of the Restoration (and of restorative actions by God in every previous dispensation) was to teach the Plan of Salvation anew and restore saving ordinances so that we don't have to rely on knowledge passed down from previous dispensations. Read about it in the Bible Dictionary (especially the first paragraph): Bible Dictionary: Dispensations

Thus, the Bible (even the admittedly imperfect KJV) is clarified by documents and teachings of the Restoration sufficiently that we know the truth without fiddling with the text of the Bible.

3. The formal language perpetuated by the KJV Bible is the appropriate language of prayer. We don't call God "Dude" for a reason, and although no translation of which I am aware takes the informality to that extent, most modern translations move in that direction. The KJV is refreshingly respectful in its language regarding Deity and our relationship with the Savior.

[Snow]

So I was wondering why the Church sticks with the KJV. As far as I know the NKJV and NIV were translated from the KJV so If the Church believes the KJV to be correct that would mean the NKJV and NIV are also correct.

Sorry - the KJV is hard to read and understand...

The KJV is in English and so are the NKJV and the NIV so no translation would be necessary.

The KJV and NKJV were translated from the Textus Receptus for the NT and the Masoretic Text for the OT. Both were translated from the Textus Receptus but that doesn't mean that both were equally as well translated. Besides which the Textus Receptus was not a particularly good text (text of the Greek NT) so newer bibles, like the NIV were subsequently translated from a superior survey of more and better manuscripts.

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder why the Church doesn't sponsor a new translation by LDS scholars? They can certainly afford it. They could retain the King Jamesian language but use current levels of scholarship to render the meaning of the Scriptures in a much truer fashion, akin to that found in other modern Bibles. That would create a perfect Bible for the Church. If the quotations in the Book of Mormon are an issue, all they would have to do is update them to match the new translation (it's still from the same Hebrew original), and voila! No problem, and a much clearer and more accurate version of the Scriptures.

It could be that the church would receive much criticism for using a pannel of scholars made up of entirely LDS. Can't you just hear the criticism? It's bad enough they don't fully believe the Bible, now they've gone and recreated it in their own image!

BTW, I've been led to believe that while the KJV is the one the church publishes, it is not the exclusive Bible--that others are considered valid as well.

Now, if the church wanted to do something missional, it might consider a "translation" of the BoM into modern English.

[jadams_4040]

So I was wondering why the Church sticks with the KJV. As far as I know the NKJV and NIV were translated from the KJV so If the Church believes the KJV to be correct that would mean the NKJV and NIV are also correct.

Sorry - the KJV is hard to read and understand...

I beleive the biggest issue with bibles translated in the last few years is that they are not inspired, the printers claim the N.I.V and other retranslations to be easier to understand; And sometimes it is a good thing, but in a lot of instances there retranslations according to what the uninspired translater is writing is so very damaging to the original scripture.

One instance i can think right off hand is in the N.I.V it says that satan will be brought down to his grave rather than the K.J.V that states satan will be sent to hell and prison e.t.c..... So if the N.I.V is correct, then that means satan will be ressurected along with all of us? I dont think that is what the lord had in mind, do you? but anyway there are many thousands of such incorrect translations in many of todays versions, The K.J.V had enough problems over the thousands of years of its coming to fruitation, why do we want to beleive uninspired men whom are for the most part simply making some money by claiming a better product? :)

[the Ogre]

It could be that the church would receive much criticism for using a pannel of scholars made up of entirely LDS. Can't you just hear the criticism? It's bad enough they don't fully believe the Bible, now they've gone and recreated it in their own image!

BTW, I've been led to believe that while the KJV is the one the church publishes, it is not the exclusive Bible--that others are considered valid as well.

Now, if the church wanted to do something missional, it might consider a "translation" of the BoM into modern English.

PC:

I can hear the critics, but I am glad that the church has not switched to another translation. I like the KJV, but also use the NIV for research purposes. Both are quite nice and informative, especially for the purposes of comparison and contrast.

Regarding the missional idea, I think it blows. The older language is working fine and if you think the critics would be bad regarding the KJV or NIVish retranslation, the redux of the BoM would just drag them out from every little rock.

[Moksha]

The Message Bible Mathew 5

43-47"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.

The King James Bible Mathew 5

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

See how much more viabrant the meaning is with the Message Bible?

[kona0197]

Why not switch to the NKJV? Easier to read...

[Snow]

I beleive the biggest issue with bibles translated in the last few years is that they are not inspired, the printers claim the N.I.V and other retranslations to be easier to understand; And sometimes it is a good thing, but in a lot of instances there retranslations according to what the uninspired translater is writing is so very damaging to the original scripture.

One instance i can think right off hand is in the N.I.V it says that satan will be brought down to his grave rather than the K.J.V that states satan will be sent to hell and prison e.t.c..... So if the N.I.V is correct, then that means satan will be ressurected along with all of us? I dont think that is what the lord had in mind, do you? but anyway there are many thousands of such incorrect translations in many of todays versions, The K.J.V had enough problems over the thousands of years of its coming to fruitation, why do we want to beleive uninspired men whom are for the most part simply making some money by claiming a better product? :)

You can't look at the doctrinal content and make a decision of whether or not the translation is correct. You have to look at the manuscripts and see if the translators correctly converted it to English, regardless of whether or not you like what it says.

Do you know if their translation was was faithful to the manuscripts on those particular verses.

[Aelswyth]

I beleive the biggest issue with bibles translated in the last few years is that they are not inspired, the printers claim the N.I.V and other retranslations to be easier to understand; And sometimes it is a good thing, but in a lot of instances there retranslations according to what the uninspired translater is writing is so very damaging to the original scripture.

One instance i can think right off hand is in the N.I.V it says that satan will be brought down to his grave rather than the K.J.V that states satan will be sent to hell and prison e.t.c..... So if the N.I.V is correct, then that means satan will be ressurected along with all of us? I dont think that is what the lord had in mind, do you? but anyway there are many thousands of such incorrect translations in many of todays versions, The K.J.V had enough problems over the thousands of years of its coming to fruitation, why do we want to beleive uninspired men whom are for the most part simply making some money by claiming a better product? :)

Um, who are we to decide who is and is not inspired? I certainly don't have any kind of inner track on that. If the KJV was divinely inspired, then why are so many of the translations in it simply not correct? The truth is it was translated by learned and devout men who possessed a decent but limited knowledge of the ancient languages, a decent but limited understanding of Middle Eastern culture, and did not have access to the better-quality manuscripts scholars now have at their disposal. And let us not forget that the KJV translators were men with an agenda of their own, also, and their doctrines were the doctrines of the apostasy.

"Grave" and "Hell" are two words used to translate the Hebrew word "Sheol". Both are used in the KJV at different places, as is "Pit". They all refer to the Spirit World (Hell in olden times did not necessarily mean a place of torment, it was the Old English name for the Spirit World of the Ancestors). So, regardless of which word is used to translate the underlying concept, the meaning is exactly the same. Satan cannot be resurrected, he has never had a body to be resurrected with.

Yes, some modern translations suffer from a too-liberal interpretation of many words and phrases; but exactly the same thing can be said for the KJV. It is a flawed translation. There are others much more accurate to the sense of the original manuscripts, though none are perfect, all being subject to the filter of the human mind.

[a-train]

See how much more viabrant the meaning is with the Message Bible?

I'm sorry, but that Message version is a hack job. There are points missing and an assumption added. The visualization is gone.

-a-train