LDS and KJV

[Watchmen]

I came across this today:

"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."

Source: Bible Dictionary: Bible

Thoughts?

 

[madhatter85]

We would be using the Joseph Smith Translation more than we do now had we owned the rights to it. When Brigham Young faces concerns from the saints about using the King James Version of the Bible due to not having the rights to publish the Joseph Smith Translation, he told them that it would suit the Lord's purpose, however flawed, in teaching correct Gospel Principles.

 

[Clear]

Hi watchmen - I only have a second and wanted to comment.

I think ANY version is a compromise and the LDS will be faulted no matter which bible they choose as a “standard”.

Often the "updated" bibles have wonderful inclusions lacking in the KJV (such as the wonderful restorations to 1 samuel found in versions which include DSS manuscript restorations).
Some "updates" may exclude spurious material the KJV writers should NOT have included in the KJV (such as the spurious proof text for the trinity in 1 John vs 7).
However some "updates" have significant doctrinal bias built into them, (such as the “gender neutrality” language of the Lords prayer : “Father-Mother God we pray” ...).

James Sanders said “I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.” (He made this point and elaborated on it during the discussion period at the Lectures presented at a symposium sponsored by the resident associate program, smithsonian institution. Oct 27, 1990 - biblical archaeology society, washington dc. )


clear
drtzub

** by the way, Jim Sanders served on the committee that put out a New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV), He also edited and published the DDS Q11 Psalm Scroll and he was president of the Society of Biblical Literature which represents thousands of biblical scholars.

 

[Doodlebug02]

Some Christians use only the King James Version of the Bible. They are known as KJV-Onlyists. They are typically fundamentalist Baptists.

That said, I think that the KJV is fine for the LDS Church. I do wish there were a more modern translation available though that the LDS could use. Why doesn't the LDS church form a committee of LDS scholars and come up with a new translation of the Bible?

 

[ftv1975]

Some Christians use only the King James Version of the Bible. They are known as KJV-Onlyists. They are typically fundamentalist Baptists.

That said, I think that the KJV is fine for the LDS Church. I do wish there were a more modern translation available though that the LDS could use. Why doesn't the LDS church form a committee of LDS scholars and come up with a new translation of the Bible?

is there a real need for new translation of the bible? Joseph Smiths translation is the closet i think the church will come to translating the bible. Because we have direct revelation from Heavenly Father there really isn't any need in retranslating the bible.(IMO)

 

[Katzpur]

I came across this today:

"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."

Source: Bible Dictionary: Bible

Thoughts?

I find the KJV very difficult to understand in places, so I keep a modern translation handy as a reference. I'd have to say that I agree with the statement you quoted, though.

 

[Watchmen]

I find the KJV very difficult to understand in places, so I keep a modern translation handy as a reference. I'd have to say that I agree with the statement you quoted, though.

You agree based on your comparison between the KJV and modern translation you keep handy or on some other basis?

 

[Katzpur]

You agree based on your comparison between the KJV and modern translation you keep handy or on some other basis?

I'm only comparing my modern translation (I can't even remember what it is now) to the KJV, so maybe it's not a valid comparison. The modern translation doesn't seem to convey the spiritual feelings of the KJV. It just seems flat and lifeless by comparison. It's kind of hard to explain. I'd have to post some verses to give you a sense of what I'm trying to say.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm only comparing my modern translation (I can't even remember what it is now) to the KJV, so maybe it's not a valid comparison. The modern translation doesn't seem to convey the spiritual feelings of the KJV. It just seems flat and lifeless by comparison. It's kind of hard to explain. I'd have to post some verses to give you a sense of what I'm trying to say.

I'd love to see any example, if you have the time.

 

[FFH]

ALL current Bible translations are flawed, including the King James.

The King James is messed up as are ALL OTHER versions of the BIble and is the reason why we see so many varied types of Christian churches.

Even differing beliefs among individuals are a result of the King James and other flawed versions of the original text.

I only read the Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

I mostly read and listen to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, since Joseph Smith said that those who read the Book of Mormon will get closer to God, by reading the Book of Mormon, than by reading any other book.

 

[zomg]

ALL current Bible translations are flawed, including the King James.

The King James is messed up as are ALL OTHER versions of the BIble and is the reason why we see so many varied types of Christian churches.

Even differing beliefs among individuals are a result of the King James and other flawed versions of the original text.

I only read the Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

I mostly read and listen to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, since Joseph Smith said that those who read the Book of Mormon will get closer to God, by reading the Book of Mormon, than by reading any other book.

:bow:

 

[maklelan]

Some Christians use only the King James Version of the Bible. They are known as KJV-Onlyists. They are typically fundamentalist Baptists.

That said, I think that the KJV is fine for the LDS Church. I do wish there were a more modern translation available though that the LDS could use. Why doesn't the LDS church form a committee of LDS scholars and come up with a new translation of the Bible?

There is a BYU translation and commentary of the New Testament being produced right now, and there is talk of doing the same for the entire Bible a few years down the road.

I personally find the KJV relies on inferior manuscripts and archaic dogmatism. If I don't translate the texts myself, I prefer the NRSV, although it also has plenty of issues.

 

[Watchmen]

ALL current Bible translations are flawed, including the King James.

The King James is messed up as are ALL OTHER versions of the BIble and is the reason why we see so many varied types of Christian churches.

Even differing beliefs among individuals are a result of the King James and other flawed versions of the original text.

I only read the Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

I mostly read and listen to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, since Joseph Smith said that those who read the Book of Mormon will get closer to God, by reading the Book of Mormon, than by reading any other book.

The Bible clearly brings people to Christ. I don't think it's as "messed up" as you claim. If it was, the Church wouldn't use it.

 

[Arkholt]

The KJV should remain the official Bible of the Church. Members should know that other editions are available, and that they can study them for more understanding. It's just easier to have a uniform system and keep to it. Also, the passages similar to the Bible that are in the Book of Mormon are closer to the KJV than any other translation, so it helps with comparison.

As for translations being "messed up": It's true that in any translation there will be flaws. Personal interpretations from the translators will be put in, and sometimes certain things simply can't be explained or expressed in the same way in a different language. I think that's why it is valuable to look at different translations to see how a different translator has expressed it. Again, however, there does need to be an official version to keep things uniform.

 

[FFH]

The Bible clearly brings people to Christ. I don't think it's as "messed up" as you claim. If it was, the Church wouldn't use it.

The LDS edition of the King James has many of the JST corrections, in the form of footnotes, and the Book of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price, is the JST version of Genesis 1 through 13, word for word.

It's necessary to compare the JST to the King James, so you know where the errors are, otherwise you're filling your head with wrong info, by just reading the King James.

There's a book you can buy (see this link) which compares the King James and JST side by side, which shows the errors in the King James.

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible compared side by side to the King James

You'd be surprised how messed up the King James really is, if you were to take a look at that book.

 

[madhatter85]

there are quite a few doctrinal differences between the JST and the KJV. one that comes to mind is Matthew 6:13
Matthew 6: 13
the difference being a supplication to the Lord to not lead them to temptation, when in reality the supplication was to not have the Lord suffer them to be led into temptation. There is quite a bit that can be read into the KJV of that scripture about God.

to me whenever something sounds iffy in the KJV, I refer back to the JST to see if there is a correction, and there generally is.

 

[FFH]

Matthew 6: 13

Great example.

 

[idea]

It's interesting to read straight through the JST...

 

[FFH]

It's interesting to read straight through the JST...

Yes, it has a great spirit about it.