Thoughts On Lds And The Kjv

[diglot]

I recently saw two members of this forum arguing about some passage in the New Testament. Funnily enough, their whole discussion was pointless because they were both relying on the King James version which is simply in error regarding the passage under discussion (the KJV omitted a phrase which rendered their issue of debate as irrelevant).

This made me wonder, why doesn’t the LDS Church “upgrade” their English translation to a more recent one. I know that all English translations have their problems (e.g. some of the more popular English translations betray their evangelical biases), but at least for these newer translations the New Testament is based on a more accurate Greek text, whereas the Greek text underlying the KJV is demonstrably inferior in many instances.

Perhaps the LDS Church should produce their own English translation, in the process utilizing the benefits of textual criticism. Heck, perhaps the LDS Church could do something really novel and translate their Old Testament from an eclectic text.

The only benefit I can see from Mormons continuing to use the KJV is that it is written in the same sort of English style that the rest of the LDS Scriptures are in.

Interestingly, I found this from LDS.org (source) –

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.

Personally I don’t see how the KJV can be “easier to read, in doctrinal matters”. This especially does not make sense considering the inferiority of the underlying Greek text that was used to translate the NT in the KJV.

I wonder what percentage of Mormons regularly read other English translations of the Bible instead of the KJV. Anyone care to venture a guess?

Edited October 20, 2011 by diglot

[ldsfaqs]

I would agree that on the important stuff and the spirit of it, it is my view that the KJV exhibits LDS doctrine and the spirit better.

While it is true that not everything is perfect, and LDS (i.e. the ones your speaking of) should keep in mind a particular error in the Bible/KJV, I came to know the Restored Church through reading the KJV of the Bible myself, before I even knew the Restored Church existed.

It is my view that the KJV for english is an inspired work, which is essentially the Churches view on the matter.

Had I read any other version, I'm not so sure I would have saw and understood the Gospel from it while being in the other religions, and comparing the book to them. Shudder the thought, I might be Evangelical now had I not read the KJV only..... yuck.... I think the KJV "overall" is special and important to the Church in preserving the character of the actual Church in both doctrine and spirit.

I really don't believe I would have seen several things (deeper connections and the actual doctrine) with other translations.

One thing I noticed recently was even the first chapter of Genesis. Other translations completely change the story, and you can't see the subtle actual story, the one for example the Church in the Temple with the creation story promotes. The NIV and others completely change the story. They make the light created at the beginning, when we know it was created later, that the light spoken of at the beginning was essentially the initial creation or the big bang, whatever, etc. Anyway, won't get into all that here. Ultimately, we should not get away from the KJV at all. I believe it contains more of the spirit of the original gospel than anything else. Sure, it has some issues with some of the specifics, but those can be gotten around. As with Genesis 1, I believe it retains "subtle" important aspects that other translations entirely lose.

Although, I wouldn't necessarily be against if the Church instituted an "updated" KJV which incorporated some of the more accurate things, but, that's dangerous because things have to be picked and chosen, and who knows what particular bias might win in translating something. Things would have to be done very carefully, and everyone would have to be involved, from the prophets to the lay member to ensure we didn't loose things, like with the Genesis 1 example.

However, the Lord himself if I remember right said to use it, so until the Lord says otherwise, don't think we should mess with it.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[volgadon]

This discussion only holds true for the English-speaking world.

[diglot]

This discussion only holds true for the English-speaking world.

I noticed that at LDS.org it says that, "Spanish-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the Reina-Valera Bible". If memory serves me correct, the Reina-Valera version is basically just a Spanish version of the KJV (seeing as that in both King James and the Reina Valera versions, the OT is based on the Masoretic text and the NT is based on the Textus Receptus).

Reminds me of those Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches which are strict KJVO (King James Version Only). In their eyes every other English translation of the Bible is corrupt and from Satan. Only the "pure, unadulterated" word of God is found in the 1611 KJV for English speakers and the 1865 Reina-Valera for Spanish speaking peoples. Everyone else around the world has to learn either English or Spanish in order to have the word of God.

Edited October 21, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

It is my view that the KJV for english is an inspired work, which is essentially the Churches view on the matter.

Had I read any other version, I'm not so sure I would have saw and understood the Gospel from it while being in the other religions, and comparing the book to them. Shudder the thought, I might be Evangelical now had I not read the KJV only..... yuck.... I think the KJV "overall" is special and important to the Church in preserving the character of the actual Church in both doctrine and spirit.

While I would say that the KJV is inferior to other English translations due to the inferiority of the Greek texts used to translate the New Testament, I don't see how the KJV is closer to preserving the "actual [LDS] Church in both doctrine and spirit."

I also don't see how one might be more susceptible to becoming an Evangelical from reading a translation other than the KJV.

[Kevin Christensen]

I like Kevin Barney's approach. Recognize that the KJV is well entrenched, and provide useful footnotes:

http://feastupontheword.org/Site:NTFootnotes

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[volgadon]

I noticed that at LDS.org it says that, "Spanish-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the Reina-Valera Bible". If memory serves me correct, the Reina-Valera version is basically just a Spanish version of the KJV (seeing as the in both King James and the Reina Valera versions the OT is based on the Masoretic text and the NT is based on the Textus Receptus).

Reminds me of those Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches which are strict KJVO (King James Version Only). In their eyes every other English translation of the Bible is corrupt and from Satan. Only the "pure, unadulterated" word of God is found in the 1611 KJV for English speakers and the 1909 Reina-Valera for Spanish speaking peoples. Everyone else around the world has to learn either English or Spanish in order to have the word of God.

The main reason why we encourage use of the Reina Valera is because we've recently produced an edition integrated with the rest of our standard works, like we have done with the KJV. Granted, I don't read Spanish, but it would seem that the main similarity is use of the MT and TR.

We are very pragmatic when it comes to Bible translations outside of English ones. We go with whatever Bible is the standard one used by the Bible Society in that language/country. In Russia we use the ghastly Synodal translation, whereas in Ukraine we use Ohnienko's Ukrainian translation, which dates to the mid 20th c.

I use the Leningrad Codex.

Edited October 21, 2011 by volgadon

[David T]

The Church also uses as official translations that are...surprise... in the public domain. The Church used the 1960 Reina-Valera Spanish edition officially, until it decided it wanted to publish its own cross-referenced LDS edition. Then, it had to revert to an earlier more archaic copy-right free version of the Reina-Valera, and then were free to make some of their own updates to some of the most difficult archaisms, while still leaving it decidedly old-fashioned. The new version is the Reina-Valera 2009, which you might consider something like the NKJV, but with even less modernizing and scholastic updating.

One nice thing about the RV over the KJV is that the RV actually renders out YHWH as "Jehová" in the OT, rather than replacing it with LORD (in Spanish, Señor), as do nearly all English versions. In many instances, the RV is actually a much closer translation than the KJV.

Oh, and for my own personal reading and study, I use the NRSV. Love it.

Edited October 21, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sargon]

I almost never read from the KJV anymore. I like reading the NIV and the NRSV. Much easier to read and thus more enjoyable.

I see three basic reasons why we use the KJV, and why it will be a very, very long time before the church changes that:

(1) The Book of Mormon uses KJV language. That will never change since we don't have the original text if we wanted to do a retranslation.

(2) The KJV is so deeply entrenched in LDS tradition that most English speaking LDS don't even want another translation. There are echoes of fundamentalist KJV-onlyism in some quarters of the church. Oh well.

(3) We don't care about getting as close as possible to the original biblical texts as other Christians. It isn't that we don't care, we just don't care as much. We tend to put more emphasis on the words of modern LDS prophets for doctrinal and spiritual guidance than we do on the ancient prophets. We don't believe in inerrancy anyway so we aren't totally consumed with making sure our beliefs match perfectly the beliefs found in the ancient biblical texts.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Sargon

[juliann]

I gave a sacrament meeting talk in which I suggested the use of other versions for private study for those who had difficulty connecting with the archaic language in the KJV. I was not hit by lightening....or the bishop. I use the NRSV except when in church. Other translations have been quoted in General Conference.

[diglot]

(3) We don't care about getting as close as possible to the original biblical texts as other Christians. It isn't that we don't care, we just don't care as much. We tend to put more emphasis on the words of modern LDS prophets for doctrinal and spiritual guidance than we do on the ancient prophets. We don't believe in inerrancy anyway so we aren't totally consumed with making sure our beliefs match perfectly the beliefs found in the ancient biblical texts.

Good point! Didn't cross my mind.

[zerinus]

I recently saw two members of this forum arguing about some passage in the New Testament. Funnily enough, their whole discussion was pointless because they were both relying on the King James version which is simply in error regarding the passage under discussion (the KJV omitted a phrase which rendered their issue of debate as irrelevant).

This made me wonder, why doesn’t the LDS Church “upgrade” their English translation to a more recent one. I know that all English translations have their problems (e.g. some of the more popular English translations betray their evangelical biases), but at least for these newer translations the New Testament is based on a more accurate Greek text, whereas the Greek text underlying the KJV is demonstrably inferior in many instances.

It may indeed be that the more modern translations render a few passages more accurately than the KJV (although even that is debatable, because these scholarly preferences are not always conclusive, but a matter of preferring one manuscript over another); but I believe that the KJV is overall a better translation than any of its modern equivalents, for reasons that go beyond more verbal accuracy in a few isolated passages. There is nore to a good translation than verbal accuracy throughout.

Perhaps the LDS Church should produce their own English translation, in the process utilizing the benefits of textual criticism. Heck, perhaps the LDS Church could do something really novel and translate their Old Testament from an eclectic text.

It has been prophesied that a more complete text of the Bible, containing much more material than exists in our current Bible, will someday be revealed to the Church. When that time comes, a new translation of the Bible (a much bigger Bible) will be given to the Church by revelation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon was given, which would render any attempt by the Church at the present time to make a new translation of the existing, imperfect manuscripts a superfluous exercise.

The only benefit I can see from Mormons continuing to use the KJV is that it is written in the same sort of English style that the rest of the LDS Scriptures are in.

Actually, the benefits are more than that.

Personally I don’t see how the KJV can be “easier to read, in doctrinal matters”. This especially does not make sense considering the inferiority of the underlying Greek text that was used to translate the NT in the KJV.

It is not a matter of being “easier to read, in doctrinal matters”. It is just a better overall translation—the occasional errors notwithstanding.

I wonder what percentage of Mormons regularly read other English translations of the Bible instead of the KJV. Anyone care to venture a guess?

Nobody is prevented from reading other translations of the Bible. It is even encouraged. The fact that the Church uses the KJV as its official translation of the Bible, does not mean that Church members are not free to read other translations, or indeed not encouraged to do so.

Edited October 21, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

It may indeed be that the more modern translations render a few passages more accurately than the KJV (although even that is debatable, because these scholarly preferences are not always conclusive, but a matter of preferring one manuscript over another);

No its not really debatable.

It has been prophesied that a more complete text of the Bible, containing much more material than exists in our current Bible, will someday be revealed to the Church. When that time comes, a new translation of the Bible (a much bigger Bible) will be given to the Church by revelation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon was given, which would render any attempt by the Church at the present time to make a new translation of the existing, imperfect manuscripts a superfluous exercise.

Didn't know about that prophecy. Interesting

Do you have a source for it?

Actually, the benefits are more than that.

Such as...?

Edited October 21, 2011 by diglot

[Sargon]

It has been prophesied that a more complete text of the Bible, containing much more material than exists in our current Bible, will someday be revealed to the Church. When that time comes, a new translation of the Bible (a much bigger Bible) will be given to the Church by revelation, in the same way that the Book of Mormon was given, which would render any attempt by the Church at the present time to make a new translation of the existing, imperfect manuscripts a superfluous exercise.

I would also like to know what you are referring to.

[maklelan]

The main reason why we encourage use of the Reina Valera is because we've recently produced an edition integrated with the rest of our standard works, like we have done with the KJV. Granted, I don't read Spanish, but it would seem that the main similarity is use of the MT and TR.

We are very pragmatic when it comes to Bible translations outside of English ones. We go with whatever Bible is the standard one used by the Bible Society in that language/country. In Russia we use the ghastly Synodal translation, whereas in Ukraine we use Ohnienko's Ukrainian translation, which dates to the mid 20th c.

I use the Leningrad Codex.

Heretic. One should only use Leningrad where Aleppo is not extant. Leningrad's use of the metheg is an abomination.

[maklelan]

Didn't know about that prophecy.

I would venture to guess that he's the only one who knows about that prophecy.

[maklelan]

I recently saw two members of this forum arguing about some passage in the New Testament. Funnily enough, their whole discussion was pointless because they were both relying on the King James version which is simply in error regarding the passage under discussion (the KJV omitted a phrase which rendered their issue of debate as irrelevant).

This made me wonder, why doesn’t the LDS Church “upgrade” their English translation to a more recent one. I know that all English translations have their problems (e.g. some of the more popular English translations betray their evangelical biases), but at least for these newer translations the New Testament is based on a more accurate Greek text, whereas the Greek text underlying the KJV is demonstrably inferior in many instances.

First, the LDS Church is a creature of habit. Second, the Book of Mormon is written to sound like the KJV. Third, changing translations would cost a lot of money, take a lot of time, and require a lot of qualifications when it came to writing curricula.

Perhaps the LDS Church should produce their own English translation, in the process utilizing the benefits of textual criticism. Heck, perhaps the LDS Church could do something really novel and translate their Old Testament from an eclectic text.

There was a BYU translation and commentary under way recently, but one of the main guys has been . . . persuaded into retirement, and it's been moving slow anyway. There is talk of doing a translation of the Old Testament as well, but that's just in developmental stages, and if the NT translation/commentary doesn't get off the ground, the other's not going to happen.

The only benefit I can see from Mormons continuing to use the KJV is that it is written in the same sort of English style that the rest of the LDS Scriptures are in.

Interestingly, I found this from LDS.org (source) –

Personally I don’t see how the KJV can be “easier to read, in doctrinal matters”. This especially does not make sense considering the inferiority of the underlying Greek text that was used to translate the NT in the KJV.

I wonder what percentage of Mormons regularly read other English translations of the Bible instead of the KJV. Anyone care to venture a guess?

I think the number is increasing, although staunch traditionalists still abound.

[mnn727]

.

I wonder what percentage of Mormons regularly read other English translations of the Bible instead of the KJV. Anyone care to venture a guess?

From the reaction I got in an EQ class I was teaching when I quoted the NIV, I'd judge it's less than 1%.

I H-A-T-E the archaic language of the KJV (and I grew up using it) We stopped using it at home since we like to actually understand what we are reading

Edited October 21, 2011 by mnn727

[Silver Girl]

I personally love the language of the KJV... I have never felt a need to use any other translation... There is something powerful and majestic in the poetry of the words... When I read, I can picture the events in my mind, and "see" the stories unfold before me... I don't know if those "images" would be as profound with any other translation...

That being said, I would not discourage someone else from reading another version if they felt it would help them to understand more of God's word, and help them develope a closer relationship with the Savior...

Silver Girl

[Deborah]

Ditto, Silver Girl.

I don't think any LDS scholars limit themselves to the KJV. Indeed many of them read the texts in the original language. Most people, LDS included are reading the scriptures for inspiration and guidance, not necessarily complete scholarship. I've tried reading the modern versions but they don't have the same effect as the poetry of the KJV. Maybe because it is an old way of speaking it gives the text more gravity. I do enjoying listening to scholarly discussions on the literal translations of the original texts and such things do give insight to the scriptures but I read the scriptures for other reasons and hope to be guided by the spirit in reading them.

[zerinus]

Didn't know about that prophecy. Interesting

Do you have a source for it?

I would also like to know what you are referring to.

Those of you who are familiar with the Book of Mormon will know that the people of Lehi when they left Jerusalem brought with them a set of sacred records written on brass plates known as the Brass Plates of Laban. Those Brass Plates contained the complete text of the Old Testament (up to Jeremiah), plus a lot of additional material not found in our Bible. The Book of Mormon tells us that in 1 Nephi 13:23; and goes on to mention three of the scriptural books found in that record that is not mentioned in our Bible, called Zenock, Neum, and Zenos (1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16); and also the sacred writings of the ancient patriarch Joseph who was sold into Egypt (2 Nephi 3:5-22). And it is further prophesied in the Book of Mormon that those records will someday be revealed to the Church, and to the whole world (1 Nephi 5:17-19; Alma 37:3-5).

In addition to these, there are many more ancient sacred records mentioned in modern revelation of the Church that are prophesied to be revealed to the Church someday, including the complete text of the New Testament (of which our NT is but a small and incomplete abridgement); the complete sacred writings of the people before the Flood, of which what we have is only a tiny fraction; the complete record of the Jaredites mentioned in the Book of Mormon, of which what we have is only a very small abridgement; and may more sacred records besides these, such as the complete records of the Nephites (of which the Book of Mormon is only an abridgement); plus the writings of the other tribes of Israel that the Lord has led away.

Edited October 21, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I would venture to guess that he's the only one who knows about that prophecy.

Proverbs 17

:

.

28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

[maklelan]

Proverbs 17

:

.

28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

So I'm a fool? Ok, but that still doesn't address the fact that your prophecy is really just a series of strained inferences drawn from vague scriptural contexts and prophecies. You called me a fool, though, so I guess I better shut up and let you tell me how it is.

[Damien the Leper]

Ditto, Silver Girl.

I don't think any LDS scholars limit themselves to the KJV. Indeed many of them read the texts in the original language. Most people, LDS included are reading the scriptures for inspiration and guidance, not necessarily complete scholarship. I've tried reading the modern versions but they don't have the same effect as the poetry of the KJV. Maybe because it is an old way of speaking it gives the text more gravity. I do enjoying listening to scholarly discussions on the literal translations of the original texts and such things do give insight to the scriptures but I read the scriptures for other reasons and hope to be guided by the spirit in reading them.

The KJV may be poetically beautiful but it is still a poor translation. I don't read the Bible because the literary devices and terminology sound nice. I read to understand God's word and to understand it in a way that is closest to the original meanings. I like Maklelan's argument in another thread concerning σκύβαλα (skubala). The literal translation adds a more appealing emphasis.

Just my thoughts.

[zerinus]

So I'm a fool? . . . You called me a fool, though, so I guess I better shut up and let you tell me how it is.

I didn't call you anything. I quoted you a perfectly valid piece of scripture. You can draw whatever inferences you like form that.

Ok, but that still doesn't address the fact that your prophecy is really just a series of strained inferences drawn from vague scriptural contexts and prophecies.

First of all it is not "my" prophecy, secondly it is not "strained," and thirdly it is not "vague".

Edited October 21, 2011 by zerinus