Added To or Taken Away?

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/6/2025 at 6:28 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In my opinion, the NIV.

I disagree. NRSV is better. Love you, Ben!!

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

I disagree. NRSV is better. Love you, Ben!!

NRSV or NRSVUE?

😉

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

I disagree. NRSV is better. Love you, Ben!!

I agree, the NRSV is better - but the question I was answering was:

Quote

What is the best version for the uneducated?

And the NRSV is not the answer to that question. I do not know how deliberate these things are, but, different translations match up with different educational levels. And the NRSV is a modern translation that doesn't sacrifice very much in terms of language content in exchange for readability. The NIV sits at a 7th-8th grade reading level. Once you drop below that you start getting into the paraphrases (the NLT, GW, etc.). And while there are a fair number of translations in the 7th-8th grade range, the NIV is, in my opinion, really good at maintaining a high level of readability without sacrificing too much. It is part of the reason why the NIV has become the most widely read translation today. It is also the reason why, in my opinion, that when the Book of Mormon references biblical text in non-King James language, it has a higher degree of similarity with the NIV - it is simply the quality of the language. In comparison, the NRSV makes for a much better academic translation or study bible. Although, I would add, that at least for most of my life, academics regularly used the KJV when quoting scripture for recognition on the part of the audience. This has really started changing in the last couple of decades.

I keep a handful of translations in my reading room. Physical copies aren't as important as they once were for research, and so I don't have to use them that often. But they are sometimes easier to use when I need to continuously refer back to a specific text. I also have a few that are illustrated or copies of illuminated texts. Included in this group are a set of the St John's Bible, the JPS Torah (both regular and the commentary series), A Washburn College Bible, an ESV Study Bible, and Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha, a UBS4 with NRSV and NIV, an NIV Study Bible, Robert Altar's Five Books of Moses, a Jewish Annotated New Testament, a BHS, and a Moulton's Modern Reader's Bible. I have a bunch more stored in totes in the attic. When I die, my kids are going to have to deal with a lot of books they don't want ...

[teddyaware]

On 11/2/2025 at 6:55 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’ll let the angel who was sent from the presence of God to the Prophet Nephi bring additional insight into this discussion. Whatever the actual identification of the “great and abominable church” ultimately turns out to be, it’s clear that certain individuals who had access to the sacred writings of the Apostolic church of Christ tampered with them in a major way, mostly by deleting whole plain and precious portions of originally pure and accurate holy writ. It appears that whether or not the Catholics added to the Bible with apocryphal books or if the Protestants deleted from the Bible by removing the Apocrypha is of little consequence when compared to the original diabolical wholesale tampering with the Bible that took place many years earlier.

-24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book (the Bible) 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. (2 Nephi 13)

Edited November 22, 2025 by teddyaware

[Kevin Christensen]

On 11/2/2025 at 4:55 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!

For the right questions and the best answer about the Bible, read this by Margaret Barker, "Text and Context", which tells the story of how we get the current canon.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Then read 1 Nephi 13.

And also consider John Gee's chapter, "The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity" in Early Christians in Disarray.

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/early-christians-disarray-contemporary-lds-perspectives-christian-apostasy

And for afters, see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

[The Nehor]

On 11/8/2025 at 6:53 PM, JAHS said:

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

I think he was wrong.

[The Nehor]

On 11/8/2025 at 3:50 PM, rodheadlee said:

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

The KJV is pretty bad at this.

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll let the angel who was sent from the presence of God to the Prophet Nephi bring additional insight into this discussion. Whatever the actual identification of the “great and abominable church” ultimately turns out to be, it’s clear that certain individuals who had access to the sacred writings of the Apostolic church of Christ tampered with them in a major way, mostly by deleting whole plain and precious portions of originally pure and accurate holy writ. It appears that whether or not the Catholics added to the Bible with apocryphal books or if the Protestants deleted from the Bible by removing the Apocrypha is of little consequence when compared to the original diabolical wholesale tampering with the Bible that took place many years earlier.

-24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book (the Bible) 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. (2 Nephi 13)

I agree! Canonize the gnostic texts!

/s (mostly)

Edited November 23, 2025 by The Nehor

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think he was wrong.

Don't forget though, that Joseph Smith wasn't making the claim that it was the most accurate translation based on his knowledge of ancient languages. What he said was that it "correspond[ed] nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years." Based on his other comments, I think that at least part of this perception was created by the fact that Joseph wasn't fluent in German, and that the German translation that Luther made (which itself was highly influential on the KJV through Tyndale's translation) was made to be more accessible. I think that if we were to look at what Joseph Smith was referring to, it would be that Joseph found alternatives in Luther's translation to passages in the KJV that Joseph had difficulty with (theologically) and that regularly Joseph preferred Luther's approach to those problematic texts. I highly doubt that Joseph engaged in any systematic comparison between the German and the KJV.

So I would tend to agree with your assessment all the way around (about the quality of Luther's translation), but I also don't think that Joseph's experience with Luther was terribly comprehensive - that is, I don't think that he was particularly competent in making the kind of claim that he made. In general, when I use this quote it isn't to suggest that Luther's translation was particularly good, it is simply to point out that Joseph Smith did not have the same high view of the King James that early 20th century Mormonism did. Their elevation of the King James came because of more modern translations and their conflicts with the unique LDS scripture (Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, etc.), and the fact that newer translations were not as compatible with the revelations given by Joseph Smith - mostly in the language.

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/22/2025 at 5:59 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I agree, the NRSV is better - but the question I was answering was:

And the NRSV is not the answer to that question. I do not know how deliberate these things are, but, different translations match up with different educational levels. And the NRSV is a modern translation that doesn't sacrifice very much in terms of language content in exchange for readability. The NIV sits at a 7th-8th grade reading level. Once you drop below that you start getting into the paraphrases (the NLT, GW, etc.). And while there are a fair number of translations in the 7th-8th grade range, the NIV is, in my opinion, really good at maintaining a high level of readability without sacrificing too much. It is part of the reason why the NIV has become the most widely read translation today. It is also the reason why, in my opinion, that when the Book of Mormon references biblical text in non-King James language, it has a higher degree of similarity with the NIV - it is simply the quality of the language. In comparison, the NRSV makes for a much better academic translation or study bible. Although, I would add, that at least for most of my life, academics regularly used the KJV when quoting scripture for recognition on the part of the audience. This has really started changing in the last couple of decades.

I keep a handful of translations in my reading room. Physical copies aren't as important as they once were for research, and so I don't have to use them that often. But they are sometimes easier to use when I need to continuously refer back to a specific text. I also have a few that are illustrated or copies of illuminated texts. Included in this group are a set of the St John's Bible, the JPS Torah (both regular and the commentary series), A Washburn College Bible, an ESV Study Bible, and Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha, a UBS4 with NRSV and NIV, an NIV Study Bible, Robert Altar's Five Books of Moses, a Jewish Annotated New Testament, a BHS, and a Moulton's Modern Reader's Bible. I have a bunch more stored in totes in the attic. When I die, my kids are going to have to deal with a lot of books they don't want ...

Have you considered The Message version? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Have you considered The Message version?

Not really. It's more of a paraphrase.

If I am just reading for pleasure, it's generally going to be the KJV - because, at least for me, it has a high level of familiarity. If I am doing academic work, the KJV (or the NIV) usually work just fine for the text that I quote - depending on the audience. But in my research for academic work, I pull in a lot of other things including original language texts (Hebrew and Greek). What I read then is often very technical and at a level where this is often disagreement over nuances in the text.

People can be overly concerned about which translation to use - in the long run, its better to find one that is readable to you, and to read through the text, than to start with what might ultimately be a better text but much harder for you to read and understand in a way that makes it meaningful to you.

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not really. It's more of a paraphrase.

If I am just reading for pleasure, it's generally going to be the KJV - because, at least for me, it has a high level of familiarity. If I am doing academic work, the KJV (or the NIV) usually work just fine for the text that I quote - depending on the audience. But in my research for academic work, I pull in a lot of other things including original language texts (Hebrew and Greek). What I read then is often very technical and at a level where this is often disagreement over nuances in the text.

People can be overly concerned about which translation to use - in the long run, its better to find one that is readable to you, and to read through the text, than to start with what might ultimately be a better text but much harder for you to read and understand in a way that makes it meaningful to you.

There seems to be cases where different translations can lead to different interpretations.
Consider this verse in different translations:
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (King James)
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me". (New International Version)
I've been out of step with you for a long time, in the wrong since before I was born. (The Message)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (New Amer. Std Bible)
For I was born a sinner-- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. (New Living Translation)
See, I was born in sin and was in sin from my very beginning. (New Life Version)
I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born. (Contemporary English Version)
I know I've been a sinner ever since I was born. I've been a sinner ever since my mother became pregnant with me. (New International Reader's Version)
Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. (New Revised Standard Version)

The King James version refers to the fact that as a consequence of the Fall of Adam, sin is present in the world and therefore all children are conceived in sin. David's mother lived in a sinful world and therefore David was concieved in sin. He did not mean that it was a sinful act for his mother to conceive him(Heb 13:4).
In Psalms 51 David is pleading for forgiveness from God after being with Bathsheba and is explaining to God that since he was born into a sinful world, he has a propensity for commiting sins himself. Here is a clasic case where a different Bible translation gives us a completely different meaning for a scripture.

Edited November 24, 2025 by JAHS

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

There seems to be cases where different translations can lead to different interpretations.

There is no doubt. However, a couple of points are worth making. The Early Modern English King James text has a meaning much closer to the NIV than a Modern English reading of the same text (the meaning of the "in" has changed over time). Milton uses the preposition in that way in his poetry - consider this from Paradise Lost, written 50 years after the King James (Book 10, lines 751-2): "yet God at last To Satan first in sin his doom apply'd". That's not an entirely different problem from your list incorporating some of the simplest translations for comparison. The New Life Translation has what could be called a highly simplified vocabulary. How simple? 850 words (apart from proper nouns). The King James? It's vocabulary is substantially larger - about 8700 unique words that aren't proper names (or ten times the vocabulary size). You will always get a more ambiguous text when you reduce vocabulary size. There is an inevitable problem with ambiguous text in that the reader misunderstands the intent as opposed to the author.

All of which brings us back to the point I really want to make. Different readers also lead to different interpretations - even of the same translation. I read the King James text (at least in this verse) differently than you do. But, I probably have a lot more exposure to the historical variants of English. There are three legs to this stool. The texts, the readers, and the authors. And we can't simply say that it is the translation alone that leads to different interpretations - the (in)competency of the reader also matters.

And having gotten there, I need to point some things out - you write:

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

The King James version refers to the fact that as a consequence of the Fall of Adam, sin is present in the world and therefore all children are conceived in sin.

No, it doesn't. In fact, Adam isn't mentioned, the fall isn't mentioned. The entire discussion about the relevance of the Fall to this Psalm comes only with the development of such a doctrine within Christianity. This is all background that no Israelite would bring to this text when the Psalms were written. To interpret the Psalm in this way requires a pre-existing theological framework that isn't textual. To the extent that we can read Psalm 51 as a reference to the fall, it changes the language. Genesis 3 doesn't suggest a conception "in sin" but a conception "in sorrow". These are very different things.

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

David is pleading for forgiveness from God after being with Bathsheba and is explaining to God that since he was born into a sinful world, he has a propensity for commiting sins himself.

And of course there is something off about this interpretation. Why? David acknowledges his sin and then tries to explain that it really isn't his fault at all - that it is merely his human nature?

Quote

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:

Certainly not against Uriah the Hittite or Bathsheba ...

Of course, if we removed the superscript, we wouldn't even know that this Psalm is about David and Bathsheba.

[JVW]

I'm not scholar but I wanted to add a few quick things to the conversation.

One reason the church may still use the KJV is that it's copyright free outside of England. (And I'm curious how much the church pays for copyright for its app, church edition of KJV, etc. in England.) I learned about Bible copyright from the "Selling Jesus" YouTube channel which is an awesome channel about the problems with Christianity profiting off of Jesus; I especially liked their episode about Christian Music.

My favorite version of the Bible is the Tree of Life version.

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/23/2025 at 6:39 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not really. It's more of a paraphrase.

If I am just reading for pleasure, it's generally going to be the KJV - because, at least for me, it has a high level of familiarity. If I am doing academic work, the KJV (or the NIV) usually work just fine for the text that I quote - depending on the audience. But in my research for academic work, I pull in a lot of other things including original language texts (Hebrew and Greek). What I read then is often very technical and at a level where this is often disagreement over nuances in the text.

People can be overly concerned about which translation to use - in the long run, its better to find one that is readable to you, and to read through the text, than to start with what might ultimately be a better text but much harder for you to read and understand in a way that makes it meaningful to you.

I don't care for The Message. I was joking. I cringe when I read it.