Rivers Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Newer translations of the Bible are translated from older texts and are much easier understand. The KJV is great but wouldn't the church membership benefit from upgrading to a more modern Bible? I think it would only enhance members' understanding of the scriptures. Having the best translation of the scriptures is fundamental to LDS belief.
Joseph Antley Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Newer translations of the Bible are translated from older texts and are much easier understand. The KJV is great but wouldn't the church membership benefit from upgrading to a more modern Bible? I think it would only enhance members' understanding of the scriptures. Having the best translation of the scriptures is fundamental to LDS belief.The leaders of the Church probably recognize that the problems of moving to a new Bible translation might outweigh the benefits.
mapman Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 The Church should definitly still use the KJV officially to provide continuity with the rest of the scriptures. But perhaps it should encourage members to use other translations in their personal study.
altersteve Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 The King James Bible is the most doctrinally accurate. But I agree with mapman that studying other translations should be encouraged.
aspire Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The King James Bible is the most doctrinally accurate. Prove it. IMO the Church uses the KJB because is free of copyrights and it's tradition. 1
cinepro Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The King James Bible is the most doctrinally accurate. CFR?
Duncan Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Prof. Grant Hardy wrote an EXCELLENT article about the KJV and our Churchhttp://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/king-james-bible-and-missionary-work.pdf
fatherofone Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Prof. Grant Hardy wrote an EXCELLENT article about the KJV and our Churchhttp://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/king-james-bible-and-missionary-work.pdfthe church has a policy about using the kjv of the bible, here is a linkhttp://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng&query=which+version+bible+should+usethe handbook for administering the church says this "English-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." Edited July 20, 2011 by fatherofone
KevinG Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The King James Bible is the most doctrinally accurate. Which one the 1611 edition. the 1633 Scottish Version or the 1769 Oxford Authorized edition?
Sevenbak Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 the church has a policy about using the kjv of the bible, here is a linkhttp://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng&query=which+version+bible+should+usethe handbook for administering the church says this "English-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.""...in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."Thanks, that seems like a pretty straight forward CFR answer to me.
volgadon Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 "...in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."Thanks, that seems like a pretty straight forward CFR answer to me.Is that because the KJV is inherently superior in doctrinal exposition, or is it perhaps because the doctrinal language of restoration scripture is dependant on the KJV?
Storm Rider Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Newer translations of the Bible are translated from older texts and are much easier understand. The KJV is great but wouldn't the church membership benefit from upgrading to a more modern Bible? I think it would only enhance members' understanding of the scriptures. Having the best translation of the scriptures is fundamental to LDS belief.It is a weak man that needs to be commanded in all things. There is no reason not to study other translations, but do you really think you need to be told to do so? For those who are interested, go out and buy as many as you want. No one will complain or say anything against you. This seems like a desire to be deliberately obtuse.
Monster Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Is that because the KJV is inherently superior in doctrinal exposition, or is it perhaps because the doctrinal language of restoration scripture is dependant on the KJV?The latter
Questing Beast Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 A church that does not adhere to a specific set of scriptures is doomed to vary over time. The KJV will remain simply because it was Joseph Smith's Bible....
ERayR Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Is that because the KJV is inherently superior in doctrinal exposition, or is it perhaps because the doctrinal language of restoration scripture is dependant on the KJV?Or is it because the other translations are doctrinally slanted to fit the ideas of their redactors and the Church leaders don't see any advantage in changing?
LeSellers Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Or is it because the other translations are doctrinally slanted to fit the ideas of their redactors and the Church leaders don't see any advantage in changing?I agree this is nearly, at least, always the case. But there is another reason that is more weighty, imho. Irrespective of who we're talking to, the AV (aka, KJV) is accepted (ourside of Jehovah's Witnesses). There is nothing odd or strange about the AV, and we can refer to it (among those who believe the Bible) without inviting a sneer. If we really wanted a "better translation", we'd use the JST, or we could commission a new direct-from-the-best-ancient-texts translation of our own, perhaps incorporating Joseph's work, rather like the new LDS Spanish Bible. But we do not. For all its supposed faults, the AV is the "universal" English Bible. It makes missionary work a lot easier.Lehi
cinepro Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 "...in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."Thanks, that seems like a pretty straight forward CFR answer to me.I agree that the quote does show that the Church gives "preference" to the KJV in doctrinal matters. It would still be interesting to see more support for this statement, as I suspect it may be based on tradition and misconceptions.A few months ago, a member of our EQ presidency (and an apologist) gave a lesson in which he focused on passages from the Bible that pretty clearly support LDS doctrines (such as those that contradict the theory of the trinity). I pulled up a parallel bible website on my phone and compared the scriptures he was using with 5 or 6 other translations as he went through the lesson, and none of the alternate translations were materially different. They all still supported the LDS doctrine just as much as the KJV did. This discussion is made much more complicated by the publication of the "LDS" version of the King James Bible. Before that event, it would have been much easier for an alternate translation to have gained traction in the Church, but now it would be almost impossible. The only way it could happen would be for the Church to officially publish an LDS version of another translation as well, and allow either to be used in meetings until the alternate translation gained popularity, and then phasing out the KJV. This would take a generation or more, and I doubt there would be very much support for such an effort at any level of Church leadership.Sadly, this is one area where non-English speaking members of the Church probably have a huge advantage over us English-speaking ones.
BCSpace Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Should the church upgrade.If we did, what extant version do you suggest? The Church itself has enough scholarship to create it's own version, but I think that could be a bad move PR-wise. We do well with making the KJV the introductory canon to the JST excerpt canon. With our emphsis on education, I don't think the older English is a problem. It is indeed a stumbling block to many who don't take reading and education seriously however.
cinepro Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I also wonder if the attitude of Church members and leaders would change if we were more familiar with the actual process by which the KJV was created. It may not have been as unbiased as we seem to think:Let's travel back to 1603: King James I, who had ruled Scotland, ascended to the throne of England. What he found was a country suspicious of the new king."He was regarded as a foreigner," says Gordon Campbell, a historian at the University of Leicester in England. "He spoke with a heavy Scottish accent, and one of the things he needed to legitimize himself as head of the Church of England was a Bible dedicated to him."At that time, England was in a Bible war between two English translations. The Bishops' Bible was read in churches: It was clunky, inelegant. The Geneva Bible was the choice of the Puritans and the people: It was bolder, more accessible."The problem with the Geneva Bible was it had marginal notes," says David Lyle Jeffrey, a historian of biblical interpretation at Baylor University. "And from the point of view of the royalists, and especially King James I, these marginal comments often did not pay sufficient respect to the idea of the divine right of kings."Those notes referred to kings as tyrants, they challenged regal authority, and King James wanted them gone. So he hatched an idea: Bring the bishops and the Puritans together, ostensibly to work out their differences about church liturgy. His true goal was to maneuver them into proposing a new Bible. His plans fell into place after he refused every demand of the Puritans to simplify the liturgy, and they finally suggested a new translation. With that, James commissioned a new Bible without those seditious notes. Forty-seven scholars and theologians worked through the Bible line by line for seven years.
David T Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) BYU is currently working on their own scholastic 'Rendition' of the New Testament as part and parcel of a multivolume commentary. (they're not allowed to call it a 'translation' , presumably because of the loaded nature of that word among us Mormons) - the first volumes were slated to begin trickling out this year, but haven't heard an update in a while. Anyone with more recent inside info? Edited July 20, 2011 by nackhadlow
volgadon Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Or is it because the other translations are doctrinally slanted to fit the ideas of their redactorsMuch like the KJV, then. 2
Mortal Man Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 The KJV will remain simply because it was Joseph Smith's Bible....Indeed, since so much of it was copied verbatim into the BoM, we'd need a modern version of that book as well. Otherwise the Saints might begin to suspect that the Brass Plates did not, in fact, contain the most accurate version of Isaiah and they might start to wonder why Jesus didn't quote a more modern version of Malachi to the Nephites.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Brass Plates did not, in fact, contain the most accurate version of Isaiah This seems to be a red herring.
Nathair/|\ Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 If we did, what extant version do you suggest? The Church itself has enough scholarship to create it's own version, but I think that could be a bad move PR-wise. We do well with making the KJV the introductory canon to the JST excerpt canon. With our emphsis on education, I don't think the older English is a problem. It is indeed a stumbling block to many who don't take reading and education seriously however.Don't hold me to this, because I can't be sure of it's accuracy, but I heard once that Saints tend to be better than many other people at understanding literature, especially Shakespeare because of the KJV language in our scriptures.Yours under the uncertain oaks,Nathair /|\
Recommended Posts