Added To or Taken Away?

[ZealouslyStriving]

Make your best case...

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) add to the Bible or did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Go!

[Pyreaux]

So, we are just assuming the premise of the question is valid? (by the way forum lurkers, its not).

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Churches add to the Bible?

No, not in the sense that they ever created a new list. They maintained the Old Testament canon in the Septuagint, older than the standardized Jewish canon that the Protestants would later adopt for their Old Testament.

Did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Yes, in the sense that they removed seven books and parts of two others from the Old Testament books that had been accepted and used in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years. They did this by choosing to revert to the narrower canon of Rabbinic Judaism that was fixed in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, long after Christ and the Apostles. And no divine authority to do so.

Did Latter-day Saints add to the Bible?

No, by continuing revelation we might say God (not "any man") added new scripture of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Technically, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham was canon before the Book of Revelation. 

I think Protestants might be "cursed" in this view. Well, maybe us for accepting the Protestant Bible. 

Edited November 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[ZealouslyStriving]

24 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

So, we are just assuming the premise of the question is valid (by the way forum lurkers, its not).

Absolutely not- and addressing the premise of the question is a perfectly legitimate way to participate in the conversation also.

24 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Churches add to the Bible?

No, not in the sense that they ever created a new list. They maintained the Old Testament canon in the Septuagint, older than the standardized Jewish canon that the Protestants would later adopt for their Old Testament.

Did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Yes, in the sense that they removed seven books and parts of two others from the Old Testament books that had been accepted and used in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years. They did this by choosing to revert to the narrower canon of Rabbinic Judaism that was fixed in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, long after Christ and the Apostles. And no divine authority to do so.

I would tend to think that the former would be better as it adopted from Judaism a cannon free of the need to negate the influence of a certain Rabbi from Galilee. 

24 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Did Latter-day Saints add to the Bible?

No, by continuing revelation we might say God (not "any man") added new scripture of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Technically, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham was canon before the Book of Revelation. 

I think Protestants might be "cursed" in this view. Well, maybe us for accepting the Protestant Bible. 

Why did we end up accepting the KJV anyways? Didn't Joseph use a version with the Apocrypha. I think we have done too much celebrating of a specific version instead of just the fact that the text was made available to the common literate man (or woman).

 

Edited November 2, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[MiserereNobis]

The KJV is beautiful prose. Do you use it because you believe it's the best translation theologically?

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The KJV is beautiful prose. Do you use it because you believe it's the best translation theologically?

I think the primary reason we use the KJV is because it was the translation that was used by Joseph Smith and it correlates with the revelations of the restored gospel.  We keep using it primarily because of that tradition.  

In 1992, the First Presidency issued a "Statement on the King James Version of the Bible".  My opinion on why we continue to use it (as stated above) is supported by the following paragraphs from that statement:

"Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members."

"While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

We acknowledge that there may be better translations, or translations of specific words in scripture that provide greater meaning than what might be found in the KJV (the footnotes in our LDS edition of the KJV demonstrate some of that), but for practical reasons we keep using the KJV because of the the reasons stated above.

Edited November 2, 2025 by InCognitus

[Calm]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Make your best case...

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) add to the Bible or did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Go!

I think we need to decide who gets to define what the Bible was intended to be so we can define what its purpose was and how it filled it before we talk about who removed or added to it.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) add to the Bible or did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Your question seems to be directed at the overall books of the Bible (but I think you left it vague on purpose). But I'll approach your question at the micro level.  

There is no question that passages have been added and removed from the copied manuscripts of the Bible over the passage of time, but it would be wrong to accuse an entire church or denomination of such things.  The adding and removing seems to have been done by individual copyists or groups of copyists, and this isn't limited to the New Testament.  The early Christians complained that some Jews had removed specific passages of scripture about the Messiah that might point to Jesus.  And there is evidence of scripture tampering with the manuscripts related to the philosophical arguments by the early Christian apologists in the post New-Testament era. 

Given the differences in the manuscripts, Bible textual critics have argued and reasoned over which reading of a particular text is most likely the original, and what has been taken out or added along the way.  The dating of a manuscript is important in making the decision on which text is likely the original, but there's more to it than just that.  Many times the question on whether something is an addition or a removal of a particular passage comes down to who can provide the best reason the passage was removed or added.  I don't know of any textual variant that can be blamed on "the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es)" or "Protestant Reformers" (although Martin Luther had it out for the book of James,  I'm really glad that book made the cut).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations.

Given the KJV is not the most accurate translation and therefore might contain inaccurate descriptions of Christ’s teachings, this would seem to be a problem (I don’t view scriptures as the ultimate authority on doctrine myself given they are error filled interpretations, even if also inspired, by men of God’s will) if what is meant is we reject contrary doctrine as taught in more accurate translation.

I see scripture being used to support our latter-day revelation rather than the reverse since we use and interpret scripture in ways that are meaningful to us that may have little to do with the original intent or the intent of the translator.  The KJV supports our latter-day revelation because of similar language.

Edited November 2, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The KJV is beautiful prose. Do you use it because you believe it's the best translation theologically?

No, many gospel scholars openly teach that it is not the best translation theologically.  Generally, the church uses it as it's 'official' version for the sake of standardization among church members, historical tradition because that's the bible version that most members used during the restoration, and because it's published with footnotes that include all the other scriptures.  But members can use whatever version they would like.

[Pyreaux]

I use the KJV because I already 'know where the scars are.' I am intimately familiar with its flaws, unique phrasings, archaic language, and even its known interpretive challenges. It allows me to navigate the text, I know exactly where I am, what I am reading and what it means to me. It's not just out of tradition, but also because my entire method of deep study is anchored to its text. It works seamlessly with my study tools; it is the key for using the Strong's numbering system, which correlates KJV English words directly to the Hebrew and Greek roots. To use a different translation is to lose my study maps as well as my mental map of the Bible. 

[InCognitus]

40 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I use the KJV because I already 'know where the scars are.' I am intimately familiar with its flaws, unique phrasings, archaic language, and even its known interpretive challenges. It allows me to navigate the text, I know exactly where I am, what I am reading and what it means to me. It's not just out of tradition, but also because my entire method of deep study is anchored to its text. It works seamlessly with my study tools; it is the key for using the Strong's numbering system, which correlates KJV English words directly to the Hebrew and Greek roots. To use a different translation is to lose my study maps as well as my mental map of the Bible. 

I agree completely with everything you say above and it corresponds to my own experience with the KJV.  The archaic language helps me to remember and retrieve from my memory quotations that I would likely struggle with if it was written using contemporary English.  And I feel the same way about the connected study tools that I have that go along with it.

[Zosimus]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) add to the Bible or did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Philip Jenkins argues that if you want a glimpse of how Christianity might have developed outside Roman state power, look at the Peshitta. (source) The Syrian churches of the East developed canon independently and their NT was even narrower than the Western NT. They did not canonize 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, Revelation.

When the Portuguese reached India in the 16th century, they found ancient Thomas Christian communities that were long outside Roman jurisdiction and that were using the Peshitta. The Europeans took one look at their Bible and threw them in the bonfires, not because they had added books, but because they didn't have enough! These churches claiming direct descent from one of the 12 apostles were forced to conform to the western canon and add books like Esther, Tobit, Wisdom, 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation that weren't considered by the Syrian churches as canonical.

Protestant reformers would later remove some books, but these were never canonical in those traditions that never adopted the expanded canon of the Catholic/Orthodox traditions

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members."

"While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

We acknowledge that there may be better translations, or translations of specific words in scripture that provide greater meaning than what might be found in the KJV (the footnotes in our LDS edition of the KJV demonstrate some of that), but for practical reasons we keep using the KJV because of the the reasons stated above.

This statement would be nice, if it was accurate. It is misleading (at best). In the King Follett Discourse (shortly before his death), Joseph Smith made this statement:

Quote

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most nearly correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.

Joseph Smith was referring to a German translation by Luther. (My current belief is that Joseph was using a Hutter Polyglot). The only reason why the KJV was used regularly was because it was the only widely available English Translation. It wasn't until the publication of the RV in 1887 that the LDS leadership began to more enthusiastically embrace the King James text. And it was more because they were opposed to the translational choices (and corrections) that were found in the RV. This was further strengthened because of the decision to canonize the Book of Moses along with JS-Matthew (in 1880). That the new translations moved the base text further from the JST emendations, was considered evidence that the new translation was worse. Joseph Smith himself had simply stated that he believed in the text as it was written by the original authors - and made efforts over the course of his life to read the text in its original language. It is only after the RV comes out that the LDS Church begins to catch a case of KJ-onlyism. Even though some of the newer translations are much better, we are too entrenched in our KJV text use. So we use it because it is practical to use it with an LDS audience. But I prefer other translations. Then again, I also have a BHS sitting on my shelf, along with a Nestle-Aland. So I have choices when I need precision.

 

[rodheadlee]

What is the best version for the uneducated?

[Rain]

On 11/2/2025 at 2:31 PM, Calm said:

I think we need to decide who gets to define what the Bible was intended to be so we can define what its purpose was and how it filled it before we talk about who removed or added to it.

Plus the history of how it came to be.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

What is the best version for the uneducated?

I'm not the right person to answer that question, but it my be helpful to the person who is the right person - best version for what? To learn the church's doctrine?  For commentary that helps you understand what is going on histoeically and culrurally?  For easy to understand language?

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

What is the best version for the uneducated?

In my opinion, the NIV.

[3DOP]

On 11/2/2025 at 5:55 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Make your best case...

Did the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) add to the Bible or did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible?

Go!

I know I am not qualified to answer that question on the basis of anything except authority.

In my opinion, it is easier to identify the one true church than for a truck driver/factory hand like me to sort out the answer.to the canon.

One doesn't usually decide what Church they think is true based on their belief about the canon. We believe the canon based on what we believe about the Church.

I am not aware of any who make decisions about the canon independently of church affilliation. 

 

 

 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 11/5/2025 at 10:50 PM, Rain said:

I'm not the right person to answer that question, but it my be helpful to the person who is the right person - best version for what? To learn the church's doctrine?  For commentary that helps you understand what is going on histoeically and culrurally?  For easy to understand language?

Um yeah, all of the above. But mostly for easy to understand language without changing the meaning of their original intent. 

[JAHS]

On 11/3/2025 at 6:19 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This statement would be nice, if it was accurate. It is misleading (at best). In the King Follett Discourse (shortly before his death), Joseph Smith made this statement:

Joseph Smith was referring to a German translation by Luther. (My current belief is that Joseph was using a Hutter Polyglot). The only reason why the KJV was used regularly was because it was the only widely available English Translation. It wasn't until the publication of the RV in 1887 that the LDS leadership began to more enthusiastically embrace the King James text. And it was more because they were opposed to the translational choices (and corrections) that were found in the RV. This was further strengthened because of the decision to canonize the Book of Moses along with JS-Matthew (in 1880). That the new translations moved the base text further from the JST emendations, was considered evidence that the new translation was worse. Joseph Smith himself had simply stated that he believed in the text as it was written by the original authors - and made efforts over the course of his life to read the text in its original language. It is only after the RV comes out that the LDS Church begins to catch a case of KJ-onlyism. Even though some of the newer translations are much better, we are too entrenched in our KJV text use. So we use it because it is practical to use it with an LDS audience. But I prefer other translations. Then again, I also have a BHS sitting on my shelf, along with a Nestle-Aland. So I have choices when I need precision.

 

 

On 11/2/2025 at 7:18 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Absolutely not- and addressing the premise of the question is a perfectly legitimate way to participate in the conversation also.

I would tend to think that the former would be better as it adopted from Judaism a cannon free of the need to negate the influence of a certain Rabbi from Galilee. 

Why did we end up accepting the KJV anyways? Didn't Joseph use a version with the Apocrypha. I think we have done too much celebrating of a specific version instead of just the fact that the text was made available to the common literate man (or woman).

 

Joseph Smith is known to have said that the German translation of the Bible is the most correct.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

without changing the meaning of their original intent. 

That’s kind of impossible not to since no language is equivalent with another (all the words having identical meaning) plus so much background context wasn’t said that one would have to know about.  Think about reading a talk that referred to following the example of the Founding Fathers without knowing anything about  who the Founding Fathers were or what they did.  You would have to guess from what was given what their example was supposed to be.

Dan McClellan recommends the NRSV for a study bible, but that may be for more academic readings.  I have their cultural backgrounds study Bible and it’s packed with footnotes.

But perhaps you mean changes it the least.

Edited November 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

Joseph Smith is known to have said that the German translation of the Bible is the most correct.

At that time…and he may not have been familiar with other nonEnglish versions.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/9/2025 at 1:09 AM, Calm said:

At that time…and he may not have been familiar with other nonEnglish versions.

He was. His German translation was likely part of a Hutter polyglot - Hebrew, German, Latin, Greek. There was almost certainly some familiarity with Campbell's (English) translation (if nothing else than through Sidney Rigdon). There is some influence (probably indirect) in the JST from this. Joseph Smith had taken Hebrew lessons from J. Seixas almost a decade earlier at this point - and at the time (1835), Oliver Cowdery was sent east to purchase a number of books for the study of the scriptures - which included among other things a Gibbs Lexicon and a Moses Stuart Grammar. So, I think that it's fair to say that he had at least more than a minimal exposure to other translations and other understandings of the text. There was certainly a desire to become a competent reader in the original languages of the text. And there is little question that the impact of the Seixas lessons on the way that he interpreted scripture was profound. He also uses the various lexicons in the efforts that resulted in some of the KEP translational documents.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

He was. His German translation was likely part of a Hutter polyglot - Hebrew, German, Latin, Greek. There was almost certainly some familiarity with Campbell's (English) translation (if nothing else than through Sidney Rigdon). There is some influence (probably indirect) in the JST from this. Joseph Smith had taken Hebrew lessons from J. Seixas almost a decade earlier at this point - and at the time (1835), Oliver Cowdery was sent east to purchase a number of books for the study of the scriptures - which included among other things a Gibbs Lexicon and a Moses Stuart Grammar. So, I think that it's fair to say that he had at least more than a minimal exposure to other translations and other understandings of the text. There was certainly a desire to become a competent reader in the original languages of the text. And there is little question that the impact of the Seixas lessons on the way that he interpreted scripture was profound. He also uses the various lexicons in the efforts that resulted in some of the KEP translational documents.

Sure, but what about Spanish, Chinese, Aramaic, Coptic….etc, etc.

My nitpicking mind goes to drawing a judgment on all translations when someone is semi familiar with only four seems presumptuous to me.

Plus given the thread, what’s more important to me is he wouldn’t be able to give an opinion on any translations made after his death (which is why I started with “at that time”), so is Joseph’s opinion that relevant to the question (interesting side note of course and maybe that was all that it was meant to be since Rod is unlikely to know German to be able to use that translation)?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My nitpicking mind goes to drawing a judgment on all translations when someone is semi familiar with only four seems presumptuous to me.

I see. I don't think that he does this. This is always a problem with the King Follett Discourse which is (in the text we normally use) a composite built from a series of notes taken by four different individuals. What this version says is:

Quote

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.

I don't think that Joseph Smith is passing judgment on any translation he was unfamiliar with. His own guide as to what makes a good translation was simply the inspiration he had received. The point of this has never been to suggest that Luther's translation was the best translation available. In fact, Joseph's goal wasn't to find the best translation and use it, it was to create the best translation, working from the original text. And even there, Joseph had this issue because for him, the JST pointed to problems in that original text. Rather, for Joseph Smith, the availability of revelation was understood as having the potential to make all translations obsolete. The texts could be read through revelation to repair their shortcomings.

The reason why this quote is often used is to make the point that I made. Joseph Smith wasn't particularly enamored of the King James text. The LDS Church wasn't particularly enamored of it either - until the first decade or so of the 20th century when the place of the KJV was challenged by the creation of the RV (which was a superior translation to the KJV). And having said that, the KJV is still an important text for us because of the intertextuality that exists between it and the other scripture and writings of early Mormonism. But that importance shouldn't be taken to mean that the KJV is an exemplary text. The biggest problem we run into is this idea in reverse. The belief (that has persisted within Mormonism) that the Book of Mormon actually presents a perfect translation of the Biblical texts it quotes, and does so using the exact same language as the KJV - not because it relies on the KJV, but because it is validating the KJV as a perfect translation.