CQUIRK Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Saw this on the SLT, thought it would be a good topic of debate.The King James Version of the Bible has a long and storied history, but the LDS Church is entering a period when the drawbacks of that 400-year-old translation will become more and more apparent, for several reasons: Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 The Bible I use religiously. http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/egg/egg0298/chocbib.html#axzz1EWc2Mvmh Link to comment
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Several thoughts...1) We have footnotes for the Greek already2) The modern English versions leave out possible interpretations for the verse, and though it is more difficult, I find that KJV style makes me think more about the text, resulting in more inspiring thoughts =).3) With patience we will teach them, and also, certain chapters of the KJV are not difficult to read at all, we can start with those. An understandable worry, but I think there is much more to weigh on then this.4) Thus the use of Greek footnotes, and the JST. The JST is another reason we keep to the KJV - so it fits in and we can understand the changes. But rather than switch Bible versions (which again, eliminate possible meanings), we need to be more accurate in our quoting of things.5) Many members here at MD&D specialize in it. We need to teach others.I feel as though many of the new versions truly eliminate possible meanings in context, far more than the KJV misinterprets. I would rather have small misinterpretations than meanings that were lost, that I would... and I truly enjoy reading in KJV style most of the time, though it can sometimes be a pain.So while I understand the points, I must disagree.Best Wishes,TAO*note CQUIRK, this wasn't directed at you, this would have been my letter to the professor in less articulate words. Link to comment
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I saw this article on the FAIR front page that gets emailed to me each day. The article after it on the email was the argument for not getting rid of the KJV in the LDS Church. Personally, I will never get rid of the LDS KJV of the Holy Bible. It has all the footnotes from the original texts, it has other interpretations from the Greek and Hebrew in the footnotes. It also has the JST which restores so much to the Holy Bible. The King James Version requires some study to understand well, but it also uses the reverent language we are encouraged to use when speaking with our Father in Heaven. It is very helpful to remember to use the thy's and the thou's when you read them every day. Link to comment
Bill Hamblin Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We can never abandon the KJV because it is the foundation of all scriptural allusions and quotations in the Restoration scripture. When we fail to recognize the allusions, we fail to understand the text.On the other hand, we cannot use the KJV exclusively because of the reasons Hardy mentioned. The solution is to use the KJV and other translations, and be expansive in our reading.Personally, I prefer the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, but that's just me. Link to comment
Senator Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We can never abandon the KJV because it is the foundation of all scriptural allusions and quotations in the Restoration scripture. When we fail to recognize the allusions, we fail to understand the text.Can you give an example? Link to comment
CQUIRK Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 *note CQUIRK, this wasn't directed at you, this would have been my letter to the professor in less articulate words. I know, and I don't agree with his article 100%, but I thought it interesting to post here. Link to comment
RBoylan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't see the Church abandoning the KJV for many reasons, not the least is that the BOM, D&C and PGP are dependent upon KJV language and even semantic domains (see, for e.g., the meaning of the term "curious" in the BOM and the work of Skousen on the issue). Replacing the KJV as the official Bible with, say, the NRSV, the connections between the KJV and uniquely LDS texts will be lost, and not just the more "obvious" connections, like those of Isaiah, but Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel and other texts.However, LDS should have at least one good modern translation of the Bible to refer to every now and again. The KJV pre-dates the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ras Shamra Tablets, and other important documentary discoveries. For instance, in the past 100 years or so, the sematic domain of biblical Hebrew has grown about 50% (as discussed by scholars like David J.A. Clines).Personally, I use the KJV, NRSV, BHS, UBS LXX, UBS Greek NT (4th ed. critical ed) and also Bibleworks 8 when I read the Bible (which I do on a daily basis).Just some thoughts. Link to comment
mapman Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That is a summary of a longer paper that can be read here: http://bycommonconse...ionary-work.pdfHe isn't saying that the Church should abandon the KJV or officially use another translation, but rather that we should also compare it to other translations when we study, and that we should be more aware of the textual issues of the Bible. I think that it is good and reasonable advice. It is kind of sad that despite that Joseph Smith thought a German translation was more accurate than the KJV and that general authorities have been known to quote from other translations, that many members think that the KJV is the most accurate translation there is and that the other translations are worthless.I think that the Church should update the scriptures one of these days to revise the Bible dictionary and the footnotes to include recent scholarship and more variant readings. I also hope that they will eventually incorporate the entire JST. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The church has no official version of the Bible. The most extensively used is the King James Version, that is mostly because it is the most commonly used version.Some of the members I know use different translations. Link to comment
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The church has no official version of the Bible. The most extensively used is the King James Version, that is mostly because it is the most commonly used version.Some of the members I know use different translations.I would disagree, I have always been taught that the KJV is the offical version of the Bible for the LDS Church. The LDS KJV which includes the Joseph Smith Translation is the only version I have ever been used to prepare lessons and talks. For personal study referencing other newer versions is ok, to help gain a better understanding, or to but the scripture in a more understandable language, but the LDS KJV is the official Bible of the LDS Church. It's the only Bible printed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and if you request a copy of the Holy Bible from lds.org or mormon.org the missionaries are going to hand you a blue copy of the KJV, the Church has never published or distributed any other version of the Bible. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Is there some policy making the KJV the official version? I am not aware of such though I may be wrong. Link to comment
Nathair/|\ Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Is there some policy making the KJV the official version? I am not aware of such though I may be wrong.BCSpace would be the one to ask. Defining what is/is not "official" seems to be one of his/her primary interests. Link to comment
jadams_4242 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Saw this on the SLT, thought it would be a good topic of debate.Your thoughts? My thoughts are.. we havent got original copies of the bible...sssssoooo just how do these "modern" translations happen to "know" what is better than what weve got? the k.j.v had plenty of problems along with every other translation... How can anybody take an "incorrect" word or verse translated from greek or hebrew in the k.j.v and try to claim that "incorrect" word or verse actually meant something else when they dont have the original to judge from? hears a clue.. {its impossible}. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 BCSpace would be the one to ask. Defining what is/is not "official" seems to be one of his/her primary interests.My point is that I have looked and there is nothing that says we must use the King James Version as the "official" bible for the English language. Link to comment
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Interesting article...The Value of New Textual Sources to the King James Bible Could an entirely new book come into play? Link to comment
kolipoki09 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I spent the first twenty or so years of my life naively assuming the role of a King James Onlyist. As a missionary, I even collected fundamentalist Christian tracts that outlined the reasons why the KJV is superior to any other translation (and also assumed the JST in its entirety, was a restoration of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts). Shortly after returning home from my mission, I purchased an Oxford Annotated Bible with an RSV text. Until I started studying the Greek and Hebrew texts (a precedent I found in researching Joseph Smith's life), the RSV essentially replaced the KJV for me. While I will still use the KJV in classes for the sake of uniformity, I have no reservations about expressing my opinions about the weaknesses of the KJV text on issues of great importance to Latter-day Saints. As much as I wish more LDS could study the bible like this, not everyone can be Bill Hamblin. Link to comment
Doctrine 612 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 My point is that I have looked and there is nothing that says we must use the King James Version as the "official" bible for the English language.2nd Handbook of instruction 21.1.7 BibleEnglish-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. This edition includes the Topical Guide; footnotes; excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation; cross-references to other passages in the Bible and to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; and other study aids. Although other versions of the Bible may be easier to read, in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations.This is what I found, also I have read many other translations and find them lacking take the niv bible and look up acts 8:37 you wont find it. Link to comment
Doctrine 612 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Also one last thing I would hate to have to remark all of my standard works again Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.