"as far as it is translated correctly" (questions on the Bible)

[MiserereNobis]

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

I'll also add: is there any official or semi-official word from the LDS church on the status of non-canonical writings that were rejected by the Catholic Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas?

[Vance]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language?

No.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

There are some missing books, but I think it when you say "plain and precious" it is more about the correct understanding than anything else.

Too much philosophizing going on out there, and not enough "plain" understanding.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible.

I agree that it is ironic.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How do LDS view this?

It is apparent that those that control the scriptures too often corrupt them somehow.  Even Jesus acknowledged that it had already occurred in his day.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate?

Because, even though they may not be 100% reliable, they are still very valuable.
 

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

Again, I think it was more a corruption of the understanding and correct interpretation than it was of the actual verbiage.

 

That is all I have time for now.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

 

At least insofar as the Book of Mormon is concerned, it appears the Bible started out as a pure and uncorrupted revelation from God to man. But not long after it was given to the Church wicked, designing  men, who apparently found much of the Bible’s original content to be offensive to their religious notions and sensibilities, expunged whole portions of the original text that they found to be especially offensive. According to the prophet Nephi, as it turned out, the portions of the Bible that were deleted happened to contain much of the most sacred and important Covenants and doctrines of the gospel of Christ. 

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest--because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God--because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. 1 Nephi 13

Edited November 17, 2018 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

 

 

 

Howdy!  It's been a while

Regarding the "other" books of the bible, we have a section of scripture which is directed to answering your question

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

Regarding the reason we use the KJV-  I simply have the opinion- strictly my own and totally non-canonical as far as I know- is that it was the best English translation available in Joseph's time and the "standard" and so it has stayed on I think due to tradition.

Plus when you learn scripture as a kid etc- you think in terms of the particular way it is put in the translation you are used to.  Nuances of meaning change in other translations- and then what you thought was rock solid becomes..... less rock solid.   Mormons like rock solid, traditionally.   It's the protestant literalistic tendency fossilized where in my opinion there is no place for it in our church

The whole problem of the Book of Mormon delivered essentially through Joseph's mouth directly as revelation I think obviously runs counter to being stuck in a single translation of anything- because we have the most ambiguous view of the word "translate" of any church I think.

But I also think that is a good thing if you understand the nature of revelation - and the problems inherent in "translating" a religious experience to print.

Which brings us to Blake Ostler's "expansion theory" of translation of the BOM and actually applies to the bible as well in my opinion- which is essentially that there WAS an ancient source but/and Joseph translated it "by the gift and power of God".  Meaning that it came through the consciousness of a human being who was tied to his own language and time, and expressed his experience in his own terms- interpreting his experience as all human experiences are interpreted.

I subscribe to that theory as not applying only to the BOM but the Bible as well.

If I today saw what Isaiah saw, I would not choose the metaphors or even the way of "seeing" that he had with even the "identical" vision.

References to Expansion theory- and of course you can find your own

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/2008/09/gardner-on-ostlers-expansion-theory_10.html

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf

I mean when you look at the problems with the Book of Abraham and then say that scripture has to be literally translated to be "true"- we would HAVE to follow a theory along these lines for all scripture

And incidentally for us "translation" also means "transmitted correctly" 

We are fond of quoting the 1828 Webster's dictionary to point out that the word "translate" meant something ENTIRELY different than it does today

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

Quote

 

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

 

 

 

The second to last usage finally gets to something about language- number 6- and then what does it say? "To interpret....express the SENSE of one language in the words of another"

Number 5 says "to change"!  Is there any sense in which "to change" can be taken today as a synonym of "translate"?  Isn't the goal to change as little as possible in "translation"?

And then look at number 7!   "To explain"

So remember when we say "translated correctly" all these meanings are implied because we are essentially using the word as Joseph did- as found in the 1828 Webster's!

That's a start- hope it helps

Edited November 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

I take to mean transmission. i.e. to what degree do the words in the text reflect the words as originally spoke/written. Although even there Joseph leaves himself room for the inspired/uninspired categories. So Paul might well have his texts roughly transmitted accurately but may have been giving his own opinion in some places.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

 

 

 

FWIW, there is an excellent book that discusses all your questions:

Mormon and the Bible

 

Quote

Philip L. Barlow offers an in-depth analysis of the approaches taken to the Bible by major Mormon leaders, from its beginnings to the present. He shows that Mormon attitudes toward the Bible comprise an extraordinary mix of conservative, liberal, and radical ingredients: an almost fundamentalist adherence to the King James Version co-exists with belief in the possibility of new revelation and surprising ideas about the limits of human language. Barlow's exploration takes important steps toward unraveling the mystery of this quintessential American religious phenomenon. This updated edition of Mormons and the Bible includes an extended bibliography and a new preface, casting Joseph Smith's mission into a new frame and treating evolutions in Mormonism's biblical usage in recent decades.

There really isn't a rational answer as to why we use the KJV.   As you note (and most LDS scholars would agree), there are far more accurate translations available.  And non-English speaking LDS use different and up-to-date translations of the Bible.

But the KJV passages in the Book of Mormon raise a conundrum when it comes to LDS Bible usage.  How can we move away from the KJV when it is intertwined with "the most correct book on Earth"?

[Jane_Doe]

Pretty good responses thus far on the official answers, so I'll just add my own words.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

"Translated correctly" refers to words and concepts.  Honestly, I find that assuming you're staying away from horrible translations, that's not an issue.  Having correct understanding always is important and frequently an issue.  

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I agree that Protestants don't have much of a stance here.

LDS aren't Protestants.  It's a game changer to havie revelation to sift out between the correct understanding of the Bible, versus the apostate ones of man.   

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s?

Tradition.  Again, the ideas are more important that the specific words and having revelation in hand is a big deal  

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? 

Other languages haven't changed nearly as much in the 400 years past.  So even when they do use an older version, the different between that language and the common day-to-day language is much less.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

FWIW, there is an excellent book that discusses all your questions:

Mormon and the Bible

 

There really isn't a rational answer as to why we use the KJV.   As you note (and most LDS scholars would agree), there are far more accurate translations available.  And non-English speaking LDS use different and up-to-date translations of the Bible.

But the KJV passages in the Book of Mormon raise a conundrum when it comes to LDS Bible usage.  How can we move away from the KJV when it is intertwined with "the most correct book on Earth"?

Not a serious problem.

Joseph could have just used language he already was familiar with to translate similar content.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

Oh yeah I forgot the "compilation" issue

For us there is no issue because Joseph was in the process of re- "translating" the bible- in other words doing an inspired re-write of the bible.

So that means that insofar as the two bibles agree, they are both "valid"- BUT there is the issue of "transmission" still there

Foreign countries use current translations in the specific languages- Joseph actually said he thought a (German?) translation was better than the KJV but since he was revising them it becomes a relative thing- and so we have the "translated correctly" fudge available

The bottom line here is that none of this makes sense unless you see prophets as humans who write as they are inspired- by private experiences but are never infallible.

So you are perhaps assuming infallibility of the bible - whereas we are not.  And so from this pov, Joseph was "restoring" the truth of the gospel itself- previous accounts may or may not be right according to God's will.

And the testimony is that Joseph was right.

When you step back and put it all together it makes sense but if you focus on the details it appears to be an incoherent mess.

It's all Alma 32 of course which many LDS do not understand.  There is still much fundamentalist protestant culture to be eliminated to complete the Restoration.  Without that- you are right- it doesn't come together but LDS folks don't see that often.

If you have a testimony personally- it is from God and that testimony is as good as or perhaps better than all the authority in the world because it is God speaking to you PERSONALLY and ultimately is the only way to know the truth.  YOU yourself are your own prophet and your testimony is all the scripture you really need.   The rest is for your edification yes- but that's about it- you can learn about perspectives on your problems perhaps you never personally thought about- but for you, God speaks to you to tell you your journey is according to his will.  And when God has told you- you need nothing else.

At least that is the way I see it.

Edited November 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

55 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Other languages haven't changed nearly as much in the 400 years past

Are you sure about that? What the exceptionalism to English that it hasn't changed as much? I've never heard someone say this -- that's why I'm asking.

(Obviously Latin hasn't changed at all, but it's a total irregularity as a dead language that is still in use)

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Well, don't know how much I have to add to other responders but here goes: I think being translated correctly can include inadvertent omissions. The translation is not correct if the translator accidentally omits a word, phrase or line.

Quote

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

Well, first i think the Catholic Church doesn't have much right to complain here, because I think it started much of the ball rolling by insisting no one printing a German, French or English version of the Bible. If the Church had given permission for this rather than persecuting people for wanting to read the scriptures in their own language, I do think things would have gone more smoothly for it.

Further, I kinda don't accept the scriptures as the Catholic Church "preserved" them. I have some disagreement with the Catholic version.

Lastly, there is the issue that I think Protestant Churches just interpret the scriptures differently than the Catholics do, as do I. Although I largely use the same scriptures, I have no desire to be Catholic. i believe the Catholic Church to be apostate because it doesn't follow the scriptures in many ways. I doubt it would be helpful to list them. But for instance Timothy says a bishop should be married, and I might add it is a fair interpretation to say that the Catholic prohibition of marriage while being a priest fulfills Paul's prophecy that in latter times some would forbid to marry. 

Quote

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

No one seems to have given this answer. As I recall Joseph Smith prayed about the KJV, and was told that it was accurate enough to use. However, he did work on some supplementation to it. I do not accept the KJV as perfect by any means, but I am used to it since I have used it my whole life. Nevertheless, I do think it could be better. I like the Revised Standard Version a good bit, but I see a need for a new version for the Church to use. 

Quote

Thanks!

You're welcome. Hope I didn't offend.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?

That's a lot of questions, I know, so feel free to only answer ones you are interested in. Thanks!

To me, “translated correctly” means a number of things, but the common theme in all the meanings would be reflecting God’s will in precept.

To me, the Catholic Church arose in an environment where a) the great and abominable church sabotaged the Gospel and scripture and b) the priesthood keys were removed from the earth after the great and abominable church killed and confounded the works of the apostles. The “book” in 1 Nephi 13, in my opinion, is more than just the Bible, it is also the bound set of all doctrines, covenants, ordinances, etc. administered by the power of God upon the earth. As a result, I view the founders of the Catholic Church and the compilers of the Bible as doing the best with what she had, and greatly appreciate her gifts to the world despite her lack of priesthood authority. A Great Apostasy does not mean the Lord's grace cannot be extended to the pure in heart to some degree to fulfill His grander purposes in the Latter Days, just as the Lord's death does not mean His power cannot be manifest 2,000 years later, and to an even greater extent in the Millennium and further beyond that.

RE: why we use the KJV:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-on-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/06/i-have-a-question/why-does-the-church-still-use-the-king-james-version?lang=eng

RE: why we use other translations as well: https://www.lds.org/topics/bible?lang=eng

It seems your question about apocrypha has been answered.

[cdowis]

"Translate" is used in the sense that Enoch was translated -- to become in a more  perfected state ......transmission as originally written.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, first i think the Catholic Church doesn't have much right to complain here, because I think it started much of the ball rolling by insisting no one printing a German, French or English version of the Bible. If the Church had given permission for this rather than persecuting people for wanting to read the scriptures in their own language, I do think things would have gone more smoothly for it.

As it is with most of Catholic history in the middle ages, the nuance is key. The prohibitions against vernacular translations had to do with unauthorized translations.

Quote

I might add it is a fair interpretation to say that the Catholic prohibition of marriage while being a priest fulfills Paul's prophecy that in latter times some would forbid to marry. 

Just for accuracy sake, the prohibition against priests being married applies only in the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (still Catholic, still loyal to the Pope) allow for married priests.

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

As it is with most of Catholic history in the middle ages, the nuance is key. The prohibitions against vernacular translations had to do with unauthorized translations.

Just for accuracy sake, the prohibition against priests being married applies only in the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (still Catholic, still loyal to the Pope) allow for married priests.

I think it’s the same for priests in the Anglican Ordinariate - Anglican/Episcopal priests who have returned to communion with the pope. Correct?

They use the old Sarum Rite, at least in DC near me. I’d like to go.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Spammer said:

I think it’s the same for priests in the Anglican Ordinariate - Anglican/Episcopal priests who have returned to communion with the pope. Correct?

I didn't think about that so I did some quick research and it looks like yes, former married Anglican priests and bishops can be ordained in the Catholic Church while married, but it is on a case-by-case basis.

Also, all deacons can be ordained while married, too.

[Jane_Doe]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are you sure about that? What the exceptionalism to English that it hasn't changed as much? I've never heard someone say this -- that's why I'm asking.

(Obviously Latin hasn't changed at all, but it's a total irregularity as a dead language that is still in use)

I can't speak for all languages, but the people I've known who've studied Spanish, Portuguese, and French say that's the case for their languages.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Spanish, Portuguese, and French say that's the case for their languages.

This is generally true because they are Latin based languages. English is a mongrel mix . I can barely understand 13th century ( Chaucer?) English. 9th century stuff might as well be Chinese. I would be curious to know how much other languages like Chinese or Hindu has changed in the last 1000 years.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

9th century stuff might as well be Chinese.

When I teach Shakespeare, I always have to disabuse the students of the notion that he is writing in "old English." It's early modern English, ha. I will play them an audio clip of someone reading Beowulf (true old English) just so they get it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/16/2018 at 7:51 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'll also add: is there any official or semi-official word from the LDS church on the status of non-canonical writings that were rejected by the Catholic Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas?

No.  Mormon scholars do have an interest in the Gospel of Thomas, but it never plays any part in official or semi-official LDS teaching.  You can find such early works discussed and correlated with LDS interests at http://fortydayministry.com/ ("40-Day Ministry of Jesus Christ: Post-Resurrection Accounts of Jesus") -- with a nice bibliography and a careful listing of documents and themes in that literature.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/16/2018 at 7:29 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm interested in parsing out what you think this phrase about the Bible means. Is it limited in scope, meaning as far as the words from the original language are correctly translated into the words of the target language? Or is it broader and includes the idea that things have been inserted or removed as the Bible was passed down through the centuries?

All of that and more:  Accurate translation and transmission of the text.

On 11/16/2018 at 7:29 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Also, an issue I have with protestants is that they accept the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church, but they don't accept the Church that gave them the Bible. How do LDS view this? Why do you accept a compilation of religious writings canonized by a Church you believe is apostate? Did we just happen to get it right or was God working with us then? If then, why not also throughout the history of the Church?

The Hebrew Canon, along with the Jewish Septuagint translation in Greek, and all the Aramaic Targums, etc., are part of that heritage, and LDS scholars feel free to use any of that in their interpretive writings.  The NT Canon is normative for all Christians, even though the Ethiopians kept the Book of Enoch in their Canon (it was part of the original Christian and Jewish Canon), and the NT most often quotes the Septuagint when referring to the OT.  The LDS and Protestants reject the authority of the Apocrypha (Deutero-Canon), but included it in the original KJV for centuries, and the LDS consider it useful and instructive in limited ways.

Being "apostate" refers primarily to lack of priesthood authority -- authority to act officially on behalf of God.  It does not mean that any and every other act of non-LDS Christians is wrong or evil.  Clearly that is not so.

On 11/16/2018 at 7:29 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I've got more questions, ha. Why the KJV over other versions when Biblical scholarship is much better now than it was in the 1600s? Now, I'm with ya, the KJV is beautiful in its language. When I teach the Bible as literature, I always use the KJV, especially since most direct allusions to the Bible use the language of the KJV. In my own personal studies, I use the Douay-Rheims, which hails from the same time period, also has beautiful language, and was used by the KJV committees as a resource. But does the LDS church believe that the KJV is more accurate, inspired, better translated, or what-not?

I highly recommend the beautiful New Jerusalem Bible, a product of the best Roman Catholic scholarship, and I refer to it regularly.  I also love the volumes of the Anchor Bible, which includes the Apocrypha.  Quite often, one must study the context of the words of a translation, and that is best done with extensive, scholarly notes.

On 11/16/2018 at 7:29 PM, MiserereNobis said:

For you former missionaries who served in foreign countries: what version of the Bible did you use? Was it an older translation from the 1600s, like the KJV? Has the LDS church made any statements about which Bible translation should be used in languages other than English?............

Some brilliant LDS scholars have been employed by the Translation Services Dept of the LDS Church.  I'd like to see a report on their activities.

[AdultConvert]

If you study the history of KJV translation, you will find that it is based on a previous translation "The Bishop's Bible" in 1568 authorized by Church of England.  The scholars doing the translation were biased by Church of England doctrine so words and phrases were translated to meet doctrine.  KJV was not a total retranslation so Church of England doctrine still permeates KJV.  Thus "as far as it is translated correctly" caveat. 

I think one of the reasons KJV is chosen as authorized version (Note JS version from KJV) has a lot to do with copyright laws of the more recent translations.  By keeping KJV, no royalties need to be paid to be included in "Quad" scriptures printed by the Church.  The more recent translations may be more accurately translated and can be used for personal Bible study, the KJV is the only version you will find quoted from pulpit and in church publications. If used in teaching in ward services, you will likely be invited to have a talk with the Bishop. 

[Vance]

 

[Vance]

I found this interesting.  She talks about intentional changes to scripture to change/remove content.  She also mentions texts that are not included in the Bible.