The LDS Position on the King James Version

[Jason]

That's an good question. How does the Book of Mormon translate into other languages? And the KJV of the Bible, for that matter.

The Dutch versions of the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price all make use of archaic Dutch language (including the Dutch equivelents of "thee/thy"), though the spelling is modernized. I used a different translation on my mission in the early '90s than the current translation in use, which is IMO a definite improvement.

The Dutch branch of the Church doesn't use the KJV or a translation of it. The Bible used also contains archaic dutch.

[volgadon]

That's an good question. How does the Book of Mormon translate into other languages? And the KJV of the Bible, for that matter.

The KJV isn't usually translated into other languages, though for the Russians it would vastly preferable to the synodal translation, which truly is dense and incomprehensible. The KJV is child's play in comparison. As for the BoM, in Russian the translation is somewhat archaic, the vast majority being done by an emigre who studied in a seminary of the Russian Orthodox Church. Lots of "ibo" (extremely archaic for"), lots of gerunds, very Orthodox wording in many places.

The BoM in Ukrainian, OTOH, was translated recently by a family from Lviv, in western Ukraine. It doesn't follow standard, or literary Ukrainian (which is based on the dialect of central Ukraine as used by Taras Shevchenko), but the western dialect, a lot of borrowings from Polish, not a very formal translation at all, but a homelier, hearthier sort.

The older translations of the BoM into Armenian followed a very high sort of Western Armenian, nearly incomprehensible to Armenians in Armenia, who speak Eastern Armenian. The new translation I am told is far easier to understand.

[cinepro]

As for the BoM, in Russian the translation is somewhat archaic, the vast majority being done by an emigre who studied in a seminary of the Russian Orthodox Church. Lots of "ibo" (extremely archaic for"), lots of gerunds, very Orthodox wording in many places.

The BoM in Ukrainian, OTOH, was translated recently by a family from Lviv, in western Ukraine. It doesn't follow standard, or literary Ukrainian (which is based on the dialect of central Ukraine as used by Taras Shevchenko), but the western dialect, a lot of borrowings from Polish, not a very formal translation at all, but a homelier, hearthier sort.

The older translations of the BoM into Armenian followed a very high sort of Western Armenian, nearly incomprehensible to Armenians in Armenia, who speak Eastern Armenian. The new translation I am told is far easier to understand.

That would be awesome if all the Book of Mormon translations were done by an Apostle.

Totally awesome.

[mnn727]

I do not understand the drive for trashing the KJV

Because its archaic language is near to impossible for the average American to understand.

Nobodies telling you not to read it if you like it, but mine hits the trash can the instant the Church no longer mandates its the only version to be used in church.

[consiglieri]

Wow -- Mark this day on the calendar; I agree with Consig 100%

First Will Schryver, now mnn727.

At this rate, I will soon have all the TBM's sucked into the black hole of apostasy.

*wrings hands while laughing maniacally*

It almost makes one want to resurrect the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil.

All the Best!

--Cap'n Poopie-Pants

[Jason]

Because its archaic language is near to impossible for the average American to understand.

Maybe I'm giving the average American more credit than he is due, but it's really not that hard, especially with some footnotes.

[volgadon]

That would be awesome if all the Book of Mormon translations were done by an Apostle.

Totally awesome.

It would be totally awesome if your reply had any relevance.

[Nathair/|\]

First Will Schryver, now mnn727.

At this rate, I will soon have all the TBM's sucked into the black hole of apostasy.

*wrings hands while laughing maniacally*

It almost makes one want to resurrect the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil.

All the Best!

--Cap'n Poopie-Pants

Do members get cool robes and masks that distort voices? If so, I am in.

Yours under the juvenile oaks,

Nathair /|\

[zerinus]

I think this makes an unwarrant assumption, though. Why would the Church "have" to pick a Bible to be the standard?

My understanding is there was no such "standard" until the LDS Church chose as its own Bible the KJV in 1979, and then published it by means of its own publishing house (Deseret) together with cross-references to the other standard works.

Actually that is not true. The KJV was the standard well before that time; except that the edition they used was a different one. They used an edition of the KJV published by University Press of Cambridge (UK). I still have my old copy, and I can tell you that the cross-references of that edition were of much better quality than the new LDS editions. Their only drawback was that they did not include the modern scriptures of the Church. The "standardization" of the KJV almost goes back to the time of Joseph Smith. Here is a quote from him:

[zerinus]

This, I think, is one of the main points against continued mandatory use of the KJV.

The LDS Church promotes scripture study and understanding, including the Bible.

Why then should we enforce use of the most inaccessible and difficult to understand version?

If understanding the message of the scriptures is paramount, mandating use of the KJV is a strange way to go about it.

How many people understand Shakespeare today without a good deal of prep work in order to become familiar with Elizabethan English?

I see the insistence on KJV-only as an impediment to understanding the Bible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The Church does not mandate the use of the KJV for private study, though its use is encouraged (along any other editions you might like to use). The Church only mandates the KJV for formal use, such as teaching Church classes. One obvious reason is that if people were allowed to use any bible they liked, then Church members would also have to buy and use many different Bibles, according to the whim and fancy of the teacher at the time, and the biblical "familiarity" which aids scripture understanding would be lost. If I went to a different ward, and they were using a different Bible than the one we were using, I wouldn't be able to follow it. Uniformity in that department is a desirable thing, for that reason if for no other.

While on the subject of modern translations, I should like to add that I have my favorite modern translation too, and that is the New Jerusalem Bible, especially the standard edition, which comes with excellent footnotes and cross-references. But I still like the KJV best!

[cinepro]

If I went to a different ward, and they were using a different Bible than the one we were using, I wouldn't be able to follow it. Uniformity in that department is a desirable thing, for that reason if for no other.

Why wouldn't you be able to follow it in the Bible you did have?

I think this thread is seriously overestimating that actual differences between different translations of the Bible.

I would even go so far as to say that you could learn more about the Bible by reading a different translation than the one the teacher is using.

Last Sunday, our EQ lesson was about John 1:18 ("no man has seen God..."), and the other Biblical scriptures that say people have seen God, and what we can learn from these. As we were doing this, I followed along on my Droid by going to a parallel Bible site and reading several different translations for each verse. None of the verses had significant differences among the 5 or 6 translations, and anyone using any of those translations could have easily understood the lesson just as well as someone using the KJV.

Ironically, the biggest difference was probably the JST version of John 1:18, which is included in the LDS edition of the scriptures.

[cinepro]

It would be totally awesome if your reply had any relevance.

It is relevant for those who believe the Apostles are given the spiritual gift of translation that allows them to translate into or from unknown languages.

[John Larsen]

It is relevant for those who believe the Apostles are given the spiritual gift of translation that allows them to translate into or from unknown languages.

Ezra T. Benson says that the living oracles are more valuable than any dusty books. Maybe the could just write us some new scripture so we don't have to slog through the High Middle English renditions of Bronze age understanding.

[zerinus]

Why wouldn't you be able to follow it in the Bible you did have?

For one thing I may not have the same Bible, and for another I will not have the familiarity with it I have with the KJV, which aids understanding.

I think this thread is seriously overestimating that actual differences between different translations of the Bible.

There may not be big differences in the historical parts, but in the more difficult poetic and prophetic passages, such as the more difficult to read passages of Isaiah or the Psalms, there are very significant differences between the different translations. Try looking up some of the more difficult or controversial passages of Isaiah in different translations, and you will see how different they can be.

I would even go so far as to say that you could learn more about the Bible by reading a different translation than the one the teacher is using.

Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough what I said. I said the Church does not discourage people from using other translations (alongside the KJV) for private study. But for formal use such as teaching Church classes the KJV is required

[zerinus]

Double post