Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

400Th Anniversary Of The Bible


Recommended Posts

Posted

400th anniversary of the Authorized Version of the Bible (aka the King James Version). The Bible's been around for a bit longer than that.

Lehi

Posted

Most Mormons have adopted the view of many evangelical churches that the King James Version is superior to other English translations. But Joseph Smith didn't really think much of the King James Version himself. It was what he had to work with, which is why the Book of Mormon fairly closely follows its style and wording. But he repeatedly took issue with what he thought were problems with translations in the KJV. Toward the end of his life he learned German, and he was far more impressed with the German bible of his day than he was the KJV.

Posted

http://lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng

I noticed on lds.org, on the Scripture search main page, there is a link titled 400th Anniversary of the Bible. I haven't seen what it contains yet, but I would assume that anyone with a genuine interest in the LDS view of the Bible would want to peruse this section.

Cool...to me the scriptures are like oxygen, I need them to live. Thank you for sharing this.

Posted

Most Mormons have adopted the view of many evangelical churches that the King James Version is superior to other English translations. But Joseph Smith didn't really think much of the King James Version himself. It was what he had to work with, which is why the Book of Mormon fairly closely follows its style and wording. But he repeatedly took issue with what he thought were problems with translations in the KJV. Toward the end of his life he learned German, and he was far more impressed with the German bible of his day than he was the KJV.

Reading the Bible, or even the Book of Mormon, in ANY other language is an exercise in getting one's eyes opened :).

I'm not necessarily a KJV groupie . . . but the Bible is the Bible :). In fact, I am reading the Book of Jasher to my children right now in our family scripture study, and I have to say, that from my first encounter with the Book of Jasher, my instinct has been to make a complete replacement as the default set of information . . . to replace KJV Genesis with Book of Jasher, in my own mind. I am that impressed with it.

Posted

400th anniversary of the Authorized Version of the Bible (aka the King James Version). The Bible's been around for a bit longer than that.

Lehi

True . . . . BUUUUT they didn't put that in the title :D.

Posted

Most Mormons have adopted the view of many evangelical churches that the King James Version is superior to other English translations. But Joseph Smith didn't really think much of the King James Version himself. It was what he had to work with, which is why the Book of Mormon fairly closely follows its style and wording. But he repeatedly took issue with what he thought were problems with translations in the KJV. Toward the end of his life he learned German, and he was far more impressed with the German bible of his day than he was the KJV.

We don't believe that the KJV is "superior" to other translations. The main reason we use the KJV is simply because it is consistent with the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. I've never heard anyone say it is "superior" to other Bible versions. I happen to use both the KJV and the NIV in my personal study, and I know many others who do the same.

Posted (edited)
We don't believe that the KJV is "superior" to other translations.

I have heard the AV (aka KJV) is superior to at least some other translations, e.g., God's Word (nothing but an Evanglical gloss—it doesn't even pretend to be a "translation").

29 However, people are baptized because the dead [will come back to life]. What will they do? If the dead can't come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can [come back to life]?

Many, or even most, of the recent translations fall into this same category: they push a particular theology that is very inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One in particular (and it's not alone), although I cannot recall which one, is so politically correct it refuses to call Jesus the Son of God, using the sexless "child" instead. and calls the Father the "Parent".

There may be better versions of the Bible out there, but there are definitely worse ones than the AV.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Posted (edited)

We don't believe that the KJV is "superior" to other translations. The main reason we use the KJV is simply because it is consistent with the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. I've never heard anyone say it is "superior" to other Bible versions. I happen to use both the KJV and the NIV in my personal study, and I know many others who do the same.

Well, here's what the First Presidency has said on the subject.

Depending on how you interpret the bolded part, it could be argued that they are saying the KJV is "superior" to other translations....

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson

(emphasis added)

Edited by cinepro
Posted

I have heard the AV (aka KJV) is superior to at least some other translations, e.g., God's Word (nothing but an Evanglical gloss—it doesn't even pretend to be a "translation").

1 Cor 15:29 said:

29 However, people are baptized because the dead [will come back to life]. What will they do? If the dead can't come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can [come back to life]?

...

There may be better versions of the Bible out there, but there are definitely worse ones than the AV.

No translation is perfect, but one I would recommend is the New English Translation (NET), http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm. It does a pretty good job of not trying to paper-over seeming inconsistencies, and it has extensive footnotes. It is also available online with all its footnotes. In the NET, 1 Cor. 15:29 is translated: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?" The footnotes make the point that there are over 200 different explanations for this verse, but in their opinion: "The most likely interpretation is that some Corinthians had undergone baptism to bear witness to the faith of fellow believers who had died without experiencing that rite themselves."

Posted

John Baptize Jesus

(Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22)

9Dat time, Jesus come from Nazaret town, Galilee side, an John wen baptize him inside da Jordan River. 10Right den Jesus wen come up outa da water. An you know wat? Jesus wen see da sky broke open, an wen spock God's Spirit coming down on top him, jalike one dove. <a name="C1V11">11An wow! Had one voice from da sky wen say, “You my boy! I really get love an aloha fo you, an I stay good inside cuz a you!”

Posted

John Baptize Jesus

(Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22)

9Dat time, Jesus come from Nazaret town, Galilee side, an John wen baptize him inside da Jordan River. 10Right den Jesus wen come up outa da water. An you know wat? Jesus wen see da sky broke open, an wen spock God's Spirit coming down on top him, jalike one dove. wow! Had one voice from da sky wen say, “You my boy! I really get love an aloha fo you, an I stay good inside cuz a you!”

This made me smile inside and out! Ha ha.

I love human beings. :friends:

Posted

John Baptize Jesus

(Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22)

9Dat time, Jesus come from Nazaret town, Galilee side, an John wen baptize him inside da Jordan River. 10Right den Jesus wen come up outa da water. An you know wat? Jesus wen see da sky broke open, an wen spock God's Spirit coming down on top him, jalike one dove. 11An wow! Had one voice from da sky wen say, “You my boy! I really get love an aloha fo you, an I stay good inside cuz a you!”

I'm afraid to look up Song of Solomon. :o

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...