King James Bible

[volgadon]

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 /|\

I dunno, I can't say that most Sunday Schools lessons I've been have done a good job at explaining words whose usage has shifted.

[mnn727]

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.

YES YES YES, a thousand time YES! Dump that archaic language.

Do I think it will happen in my lifetime? no.

But I read what I want to, right now its the TNIV which I find pretty good - not perfect as it replaced 'only begotten son' with 'only son' in a few places -- which is totally unacceptable in the LDS faith.

I don't know that there is a modern English version that would be entirely acceptable as is.

Edited July 21, 2011 by mnn727

[Nathair/|\]

I dunno, I can't say that most Sunday Schools lessons I've been have done a good job at explaining words whose usage has shifted.

Yeah, I could well be wrong on that.

[Joseph Antley]

I'm not sure how we'd adapt the JST to another translation.

[Marcelo]

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?

Volgadon,

I always had a problem with that quote in the CFR. I'm from Brazil and I was raised Catholic before baptized in the CJCLDS. I used to study the scriptures from the Jerusalem Bible. When I compare the Portuguese version of the Jerusalem Bible I found it much closer to LDS doctrines than the King James: Examples.

We could find in the deuterocanonical books references and support to:

Eternal Marriage

Hymns praising the Prophets (like "Praise to the Man")

The greatness of Adam

Elijah`s role in the latter days

Etc. & Etc.

Also, the Portuguese Versions from the King James removed references to "dance" (changing the verb to "jump"), deleted in some instances words that differentiated Jesus from his Father and added words in some verses that emphasized monogamy and strict monotheism.

The Jerusalem Bible supports LDS's doctrines much more than the King James. The only way to understand the CFR quote is like your interpretation "Doctrinal language of restoration scripture are closer to that one from the King James Version.

[LeSellers]

I'm not sure how we'd adapt the JST to another translation.

Nor am I, but if we were to translate the Bible into English from the "original" language texts, it would not make any sense, in my mind, to do so without emending those texts so as to incorporate the JST, especially the lengthy additions to Genesis, etc.

Lanaguage, as those of us who speak more than one know, is a very complex concept. Words do not mean things with a one-to-one correspondence: the more fundamental the word, the more possible meanings it has. I salute those who've done the massive work of translating (in the XIX sense of the word) the Bible into English. It is no small feat, especially when we consider they felt themselves under some sort of obligation to keep the translation as short as possible (i.e., without intratextual explanations of what the source language really—or possibly— meant). It's amazing that we have as few italic words (used by James' translators to indicate words that did not exist in their source text, but were necessary to transmit the meaning from the authors; but we must acknowledge that they were not always correct).

Any LDS re-translation of the Bible into English would be a far greater challenge than for any other entity. We have much more to work with, to be sure, but we also have a more defined target. The footnotes would become two-thirds of the printed matter.

Lehi

Edited July 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

One reason I am grateful that we use the AV (aka KJV) is that it is, as many have pointed out, difficult to understand without much thought and reflection. A modern gloss, like the "Good News Bible", is so much easier to understand that the reader has no involvement in the message: the "translators" did it for him.

With the AV (and the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), we must, by necessity, either read it and wrestle with it, or read it and ignore it.

There are many instances in scripture where a prophet describes his wrestling with the scriptures (or another manifestation of the Gospel) before coming to grips with the truth. Understanding comes only with mental (and concomitant spiritual) wrestling with ideas. We are so used to accepting things at face value because they've been pre-digested for us (which is what happens from kindergarten through 20^th grade in school) that wisdom and understanding never arrive for most people. We are thaught to accept what our intellectual masters tell us rather than to develop and seek our own visions of truth. Anyone who questions the "accepted wisdom" is chased away and belittled, sometimes destroyed. Pioneers may blaze new trails, but pioneers get shot by indians (purposefully uncapitalized—it's not a racial reference).

"When they are learned, they think they are wise." It's true in more ways than we know.

I am, as I said, grateful that we Saints are forced by circumstance to "search, ponder, and pray."

Lehi

[Sevenbak]

This seems to be a red herring.

I also find it interesting that some of the Isaiah/Nephi passages are different than what exist in the KJV, even though they share the same language patterns.

[David T]

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?

For those interested, I learned the following about the BYU Commentary and Rendition project from a source who prefers not to be named:

Apparently, John Hall's volume - the initial one on the epistles of John that was supposed to be the first published, like, last year - was completed, but ultimately rejected by the Powers That Be. I don't know the reasons why. Additionally, health issues haven't helped with his motivation to do the required work of revision, and in the end, that volume will most likely get passed to someone else to complete.

The whole project is apparently having some serious support issues, and a general lack of enthusiasm. It appears to be in a state of limbo.

Not good news.

[ERayR]

Much like the KJV, then.

Yes so why change.

[David T]

Nor am I, but if we were to translate the Bible into English from the "original" language texts, it would not make any sense, in my mind, to do so without emending those texts so as to incorporate the JST, especially the lengthy additions to Genesis, etc.

I highly disagree. I understand the JST as a modern inspired revision/ doctrinal and practical update, not in any way a restoration of "original" intent, language or text. It is, in and of itself, distinct from the historical Bible, playing off of distinct KJV translations. In the increasingly dominant view (as far as I've seen) among those who scholastically study the text and context. No new scholastic translation should incorporate the JST within its text at all.

Personally, I feel doctrinal selections from the JST belong either alongside the Doctrine and Covenants, or as continued excerpts in the Pearl of Great Price (all approximately dated, as the Moses excerpts are for context), alongside Moses and Abraham. Not as part of the Bible Proper.

Edited July 21, 2011 by nackhadlow

[ldsfaqs]

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 "newer" translations are not better. They directly change things to fit the particular translator's ideology, rather than what the so-called "original" text was originally meant to say. Yes, there are "some" small improvements with the newer translations, but they are simply not anything to be concerned about, and worse of all, there are also many bad changes. We get the Gospel from the KJV.

On another forum I was discussing Genesis 1 for example, how the KJV actually retains the original wording, while the NIV for example completely changes the wording, and thus the interpretation is completely different, and actually completely wrong.

If the Church did anything related to other translations, I would like the Church to ONLY modify certain clear and unequivocal KJV verses that are wrong. In my view, the KJV is the most inspired and actually correct Bible we have. I mean, if they can mess up Genesis 1, how really accurate can the translations actually be? I know for a fact they aren't.

[LeSellers]

Personally, I feel doctrinal selections from the JST belong either alongside the Doctrine and Covenants, or as continued excerpts in the Pearl of Great Price (all approximately dated, as the Moses excerpts are for context), alongside Moses and Abraham. Not as part of the Bible Proper.

While that would satisfy the need for the doctrinal emendments found in the JST, it would divorce them from the ancient context.

The Joseph chapters of JST Genesis were a restoration of the original words of Joseph. It may be that Moses did not record them, or it may have been that Jewish scribes redacted them in an attempt to magnify the Judahite/Davidic role over the Emphramite role. Finding them thousands of pages removed, and in a different volume would dilute the message of the unity of the scriptures.

We already suffer from a reorganization of the biblical scriptures and an artificial separation of the Old and New Tesataments. Peter and James did not see any particular end in Malachi (actually, they would not have seen it at Malachi anyway, since Malachi was nowhere near the "end" of the Hebrew scriptures they'd grown up with). Theirs was simply a continuation of the message of God to His people, just as the Doctrine and Covenants is two millennnia further on.

Segregating the Deuteronomistic history from the tetrateuch history, and making it appear that they were telling the same story (which they were not) has cost us moderns much of the understanding of the Bible. Doing more of the same would not be an improvement.

I understand the desire to keep the "Bible" separate from the "New Translation", but doing so carries its own risks.

Lehi

Edited July 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

While that would satisfy the need for the doctrinal emendments found in the JST, it would divorce them from the ancient context.

The Joseph chapters of JST Genesis were a restoration of the original words of Joseph. It may be that Moses did not record them, or it may have been that Jewish scribes redacted them in an attempt to magnify the Judahite/Davidc role over the Emphramite role. Finding them thousands of pages removed, and in a different volume would dilute the message of the unity of the scriptures.

You see, I don't think that's necessarily the case, although I do understand and respect the belief that it is. It was, however, clearly ported over and revised from the Book of Mormon text. I don't see the need for it to be in two places, especially when it most likely was not part of the initial document that we know as Genesis.

Edited July 21, 2011 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

For those interested, I learned the following about the BYU Commentary and Rendition project from a source who prefers not to be named:

Apparently, John Hall's volume - the initial one on the epistles of John that was supposed to be the first published, like, last year - was completed, but ultimately rejected by the Powers That Be. I don't know the reasons why. Additionally, health issues haven't helped with his motivation to do the required work of revision, and in the end, that volume will most likely get passed to someone else to complete.

The whole project is apparently having some serious support issues, and a general lack of enthusiasm. It appears to be in a state of limbo.

Not good news.

Wow. I first heard about this project over 4 years ago from an enthusiastic Gospel Doctrine teacher, and this is really bad news. Hopefully the project will survive, and if not, hopefully the whole story of its demise will one day be told.

[kolipoki09]

The "newer" translations are not better. They directly change things to fit the particular translator's ideology, rather than what the so-called "original" text was originally meant to say.

So nothing was changed to conform to the KJV translator's biases?

Yes, there are "some" small improvements with the newer translations, but they are simply not anything to be concerned about, and worse of all, there are also many bad changes. We get the Gospel from the KJV.

So I can't get the Gospel from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? I better call Accordance. I want my money back.

On another forum I was discussing Genesis 1 for example, how the KJV actually retains the original wording, while the NIV for example completely changes the wording, and thus the interpretation is completely different, and actually completely wrong.

Are you actually claiming that there is an extant, original manuscript of Genesis 1 from which we can compare the accuracy of the KJV and NIV?

If the Church did anything related to other translations, I would like the Church to ONLY modify certain clear and unequivocal KJV verses that are wrong. In my view, the KJV is the most inspired and actually correct Bible we have. I mean, if they can mess up Genesis 1, how really accurate can the translations actually be? I know for a fact they aren't.

I take it you're unfamiliar with textual criticism, Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek. Those who claim to know "for a fact" usually aren't. I use the KJV in Church, simply because it's part of my quad. However, when I'm researching and writing I use the Hebrew and Greek texts, along with the NRSV. In my own experience, BYU-Idaho's Greek, Hebrew, and Latin classes rarely, if ever use the KJV as a gauge to test the accuracy of translations.

The language of the KJV is archaic and difficult (especially when you're trying to teach it to 7-year-olds). Latter-day Saints revere the KJV because its wording is reflected in a number of other important passages in restoration canon. It is an incredibly naive position to assume that Joseph Smith and others viewed the KJV as the most doctrinally accurate translation of the original intent of the biblical authors. It's used out of convenience and tradition. It's probably not going anywhere any time soon.

Edited July 21, 2011 by kolipoki09

[Nathair/|\]

Again, don't hold me this, but didn't Joseph Smith say that Luther's German translation was pretty good?

[LeSellers]

Again, don't hold me this, but didn't Joseph Smith say that Luther's German translation was pretty good?

Yes, he did.

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.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.349

But that does not mean that it was "great".

Lehi

Edited July 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[volgadon]

On another forum I was discussing Genesis 1 for example, how the KJV actually retains the original wording, while the NIV for example completely changes the wording, and thus the interpretation is completely different, and actually completely wrong.

Could you say the same for the KJV of Genesis 25:27 or 37:19?