Using Other Bible Translations

[altersteve]

I purchased the New International Version recently and I am about halfway through the Old Testament. So far I am enjoying the experience of reading the Bible through kind of a different perspective, or at least something different than what I'm used to. Comparing it to the KJV is particularly interesting. I hope to soon get a hard copy of the JST, or "Inspired Version" (the full text published by the RLDS Church). I also feel it's helpful to do this so that you can become more knowledgeable about the Bible in general, and be better able to have discussions with people who are not familiar with your preferred Bible version (the KJV, in this case). In addition, I hope to soon obtain hard copies of the New World Translation (the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses use), the Qu'ran, and the scriptures of other religions.

Does anyone else here use other Bible translations in their own personal study? And does the Church encourage its members to do so?

[LeSellers]

The Church neither encourages nor discourages us from using alternative translations. We use the AV (aka King James Version) in Church for a couple of reasons, not least of which is all using the same one. There are several others, as well—important among these is the fact that all the other Standard Works quote the AV (in English, at least), so we'd have to redo the entire canon to make them consistent.

Further, even though the AV advances a particular theology, it does so less aggressively than modern translations, all of which have a notable bias of one sort or another.

I often read the NIV New Testament. But I don't enjoy it as much as the AV because its English is so bland. There's no struggle to wrest the meaning from the passages, so I find myself unconsciously accepting the translators' biases: the wording is so simple that it just drags me along, no thought required.

Lehi

Edited January 26, 2012 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

I read often the NIV New Testament. But I don't enjoy it as much as the AV because its English is so bland. There's no struggle to wrest the meaning form the passages, so I find myself unconsciously accepting the translators' biases: the wording is so simple that it just drags me along, no thought required.

I definitely agree with this. It's almost like reading a novel instead of scripture. But I still find it interesting nonetheless.

[maklelan]

I use several to see how things are translated by different groups. The NIV is by far the most conservative. It has no qualms about simply changing what the text says in many places where it might conflict with an Evangelical outlook. The RSV and the NRSV are the most academically-oriented, but even they have issues here and there. I would say the NASB is between the two.

[Nevo]

I think it's helpful to read the Bible in different translations. Each brings something a little bit different.

I have the New Revised Standard Version (Mainline Protestant), the JPS Tanakh (Jewish), the English Standard Version (Evangelical), and the New American Bible Revised Edition (Catholic). I also have a Good News Bible that I quite like. In the past I've also owned an NIV Study Bible and a New Jerusalem Bible (eccentric!).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I use 'em all! At Parallel Bible.

[Edit: I've especially been using Young's Literal Translation and the Jewish Study Bible lately.]

Edited January 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[cinepro]

Well, there's this:

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible

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

Luckily, it's nether a declaration nor proclamation, so it isn't official.

Edited January 26, 2012 by cinepro

[RBoylan]

I use the NRSV; UBS 4th edition Greek NT; UBS LXX; the BHS (okay, these three are not translations, but original language texts <g>) and often refer to the 1985 JPS and other translations on occasion. I used the NRSV throughout university in Maynooth, and it was the "go-to" English translation by the faculty and students there, fwiw.

I am not a fan of the NIV; I like NT Wright's criticisms of the NIV in his book, Justification.

[J Green]

I use a great program called BibleWorks that allows me to look at multiple translations as well as the various manuscript versions in the original language all at the same time. It's fairly similar to the Parallel Bible mentioned by Jeremy. Aside from the KJV, which is always at the top of my display list, I like the NASB, the JPS, the NET (New English Translation -- especially the notes), and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Edited January 26, 2012 by J Green

[Damien the Leper]

I use the NRSV, the ESV, the IV RLDS, and the NASB. I prefer the NRSV because i greatly enjoy Bruce Metzger's work.

[RBoylan]

I use a great program called BibleWorks that allows me to look at multiple translations as well as the various manuscript versions in the original language all at the same time. It's fairly similar to the Parallel Bible mentioned by Jeremy. Aside from the KJV, which is always at the top of my display list, I like the NASB, the JPS, the NET (New English Translation -- especially the notes), and the New Jerusalem Bible.

+1. Bibleworks is awesome, and everyone who is serious about biblical studies should get it (or, if they use Mac, Accordance).

[ebeddoulos]

I collect Bibles; mostly in English but I have some in in the Latin, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek. Like Jeremy, I have the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Trinitarian Bible Society's Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort, United Bible Society Greek, New Testamnent, Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, and Society of Biblical Literature's Greek New Testament. I have about 130 in English in print and probably twice that in electronic format. You name an English version and there is a good chance I have a copy of it in print and a near certainty of it in an electronic version. I do not think there is a perfect Bible nor do I think there is a Bible from which one cannot teach the restored Gospel of Christ. That said, I am not a fan of the NIV. I find it is as theologically flawed as the New World Translation but not near as accurate a translation. I like the Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Catholic New American Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard and recently I've grown to appreciate the English Standard Version. Sometimes I'll pull ten or fifteen volumes down from the shelves to study one verse and sometimes I'll pull one at random, when I feel like just reading. To be honest I do not have a translation, edition or version of the Bible that I would voluntarily get rid of.

There may be a few who do not realize that the Church uses other versions in its ministry. In the August 2011 Ensign the Church ran an Article on the 400th Anniversary of the KJV. In it they quoted many versions. General authorities occasionally quote other versions than the KJV when they find a verse that is more nuanced. For example, Jaun A. Uceda of the Seventy quoted the NIV's Acts 3:14 in the 2010 October Conference. Personally though, I love the majestic prose and poetic rhythm of the King James. I also love the Church's edition. The built in study aids are simply awesome, especially so for the average church member. It is what I take with me when I travel and is always within easy reaching distance when I am at home.

[volgadon]

I use 'em all! At Parallel Bible.

[Edit: I've especially been using Young's Literal Translation and the Jewish Study Bible lately.]

The JPS Study Bible is fun. I disagree with some of their interpretations, but would still heartily recommend it and the appendices.

[Mudcat]

Does anyone else here use other Bible translations in their own personal study? And does the Church encourage its members to do so?

After my 2 year old decided to was my Thomas Nelson KJV in the kitchen sink of a play kitchen set we have. (BTW.. he used Dr. Pepper for water and I found it completely saturated after a day of soaking.) I decided it was time to replace it and sought after a new version as a "carry" Bible. I was looking for the most accurate and readable translation, given present source material.

I am chincy.. measure twice and cut once.. when I can, so I did a bit of research on the matter. I wound up settling on Zondervan's NASB study Bible and have been pleased with it.

I tossed any notion of the NIV.. IMO, the translation is written with an EV slant that jades the view. May sound odd coming from an EV, but I don't cotton to the enforcement of doctrinal considerations over interpretational correctness even when it's slanted my way, so to speak.

As an FYI, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) was my #2 pick and the ESV #3.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Mudcat

[Storm Rider]

I purchased the New International Version recently and I am about halfway through the Old Testament. So far I am enjoying the experience of reading the Bible through kind of a different perspective, or at least something different than what I'm used to. Comparing it to the KJV is particularly interesting. I hope to soon get a hard copy of the JST, or "Inspired Version" (the full text published by the RLDS Church). I also feel it's helpful to do this so that you can become more knowledgeable about the Bible in general, and be better able to have discussions with people who are not familiar with your preferred Bible version (the KJV, in this case). In addition, I hope to soon obtain hard copies of the New World Translation (the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses use), the Qu'ran, and the scriptures of other religions.

Does anyone else here use other Bible translations in their own personal study? And does the Church encourage its members to do so?

Yes, I tend to collect different Bible versions. I enjoy seeing the different intrepretations of the same verse from version to version. However, at the end of the day, I love the KJV and find thta it is my spiritual lens to the Word of God I appreciate most.

[ebeddoulos]

If anyone is looking for an outstanding bible study package but cannot afford the hundreds or thousands of dollars which some bible study packages cost, may I suggest you check out e-Sword. It has an intuitive, easy-to-use interface. After you have downloaded the program, open it up, click on the download menu and there are 25 or so English Bibles, 15-20 Greek and Hebrew Bibles and a whole bunch of foreign language Bibles. You will also find a lot of commentaries, dictionaries, maps, etc. Unless you absolutely need some of the newer versions, your out of pocket expense is zero! That includes program and module updates. Those are free, too!

If that is not enough to hold your interest, go to BibleSupport.Com. There you will find a couple of hundred more Bibles, as well as thousands more topical files, commentaries, dictionaries, etc. for e-Sword. While there, check out Franklin Jabini's "Introduction to Biblical Languages." It will not put you into the Volgadon/Maklelan class but at least you will understand the basics of what they and others with similar skills are trying to get across. Oh and nothing at this site costs you anything. Zero!

Edited January 27, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As mentioned by Mak, most in academia use the NRSV for general accuracy. The KJV, with its poetic style if definitely one of the more pelassant reads. Young's Literal translation was useful at times for reference translating Hebrew into English, mainly because it largely ignores sentence restructuring.

None are perfect. We use the KJV in church because, as mentioned in the letter Cinepro psoted, it's quoted elsewhere. Changing to a newer version would be a major headache, lead to more disputes than it's worth, etc. Add in trying to incorporate the JST, which itself uses Jacobean English, and it becomes even more daunting.

For the record, I regularly use the JPS when teaching lessons heavy in the Old Testament, even if some of their translations are wonky. Still better than the KJV, expecially with the side notes. I use the NRSV for accademic questions. I use the KJV for general spiritually uplifting study. I also use the Tanakh in Hebrew (Zondervan's Reader Edition) as general reading.

I don't push the issue with people generally. There has however bene a handful of times I have quietly taken aside seminary isntructors, missionaries, and teachers and EQ Presidents to discuss the use of the KJV in the church. THis is only done when they say something to an investigator or the class such as "All the other versions of the Bible are false and designed to promote ideals other than what the text says", or "We use the KJV because it is the most accurate translation."

[cinepro]

There may be a few who do not realize that the Church uses other versions in its ministry. In the August 2011 Ensign the Church ran an Article on the 400th Anniversary of the KJV. In it they quoted many versions.

Were you talking about this article? In this article, there is a table comparing a few selected version of the KJV with other translations as a way of showing the superiority of the KJV. The table is introduced this way:

The King James Bible is regarded by many to be the most beautiful English language version because of its lyrical quality, which seems to speak to the heart and spirit.

The article then concludes:

Today, English-speaking Church members use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions.

I'm not sure an article that quotes from other Bible translations as a way to show their inferiority is a good example of the Church using other versions "in its ministry".

General authorities occasionally quote other versions than the KJV when they find a verse that is more nuanced. For example, Jaun A. Uceda of the Seventy quoted the NIV's Acts 3:14 in the 2010 October Conference.

Here is the quote:

He is “the Lamb of God,”⁹ He is “the Holy and Righteous One,”¹⁰ “and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”¹¹ In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

Footnotes 9 and 11 reference the KJV, but 10 references Acts 3:14 in the NIV.

Here's that vese in the KJV:

14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a ^amurderer to be granted unto you;

Here's how it appears in the NIV:

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.

While it's certainly interesting to see a reference to the NIV pop-up in a General Conference talk, I think you're overstating the "openness" that General Authorities have to other translations of the Bible.

It appears Elder Uceda was born and raised in South America. If English was not his original language, and he didn't grow up reading the KJV, I wonder if that influenced his attitude towards using other Bible translations.

But I think saying it's something "General Authorities occasionally do" overstates the case.

Edited January 27, 2012 by cinepro

[Nevo]

But I think saying it's something "General Authorities occasionally do" overstates the case.

Well, Elder Maxwell quoted the RSV translation for Col. 1:17 in a 1991 General Conference talk. (Poor J. Reuben Clark probably rolled over in his grave.)

Although I have to say, "in him all things hold together" has a nicer ring than "by him all things consist."

[ebeddoulos]

Cinepro:

Since you seem to have some difficulty with some rather basic words from the English language I thought I would help you out:

use

   [v. yooz or, for past tense form of 9, yoost; n. yoos] verb, used, us·ing, noun

verb (used with object)

1. to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of:to use a knife.

2. to avail oneself of; apply to one's own purposes: to use the facilities.

min·is·try

   [min-uh-stree]

noun, plural -tries.

the service, functions, or profession of a minister of religion.

oc·ca·sion·al·ly

   [uh-key-zhuh-nl-ee]

adverb

at times; from time to time; now and then.

nu·ance

   [noo-ahns, nyoo-, noo-ahns, nyoo-; Fr.ny-ahns]

noun, plural -anc·es  [-ahn-siz, -ahn-siz; Fr. -ahns]

1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning,response, etc.

2. a very slight difference or variation in color or tone.

All of the above definitions come from dictionary.com. Hope this helps your understanding.

Oh, a couple of other things:

1. I find it rather telling that you are willing to speculate on the “attitude” of a General Authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Placing your personal interpretation of another’s unspoken thoughts is not an appropriate thing to do.

2. I did not use the word “openness” which you appear - via quotation marks – to have me using. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Putting words into another’s mouth is not an appropriate thing to do.

I admit that these last two items reinforces my estimation of you.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[cinepro]

1. I find it rather telling that you are willing to speculate on the “attitude” of a General Authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Placing your personal interpretation of another’s unspoken thoughts is not an appropriate thing to do.

It occurred to me that someone who grew up in a country without the KJV might be more open to non-KJV English Bible translations. I'm not sure how you got from there to here, but it never occurred to me that acknowledging such a possibility might be inappropriate. Truly, you never can tell what people will get bothered by these days.

2. I did not use the word “openness” which you appear - via quotation marks – to have me using. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Putting words into another’s mouth is not an appropriate thing to do.

I can assure you the quotation marks were only there to highlight the ambiguous nature of word, and if anyone read that as a direct quote, I apologize. But at least now I know why they have this guy in the smileys:

[cinepro]

In addition to the First Presidency memo earlier in the thread, here's another datapoint that might speak to the Church's view of other Bible translations:

According to the LDS Scripture Citation Index at BYU, there have been 24,032 references to Bible verses in General Conference since 1942. We have identified two instances in which non-KJV Bibles were used. Are there any others?

Edited January 27, 2012 by cinepro

[Ron Beron]

Since it hasn't been mentioned I happen to like the NET Bible through Dallas Theological, the NRIV, and the New Jerusalem Bible.

[Nevo]

According to the LDS Scripture Citation Index at BYU, there have been 24,032 references to Bible verses in General Conference since 1942. We have identified two instances in which non-KJV Bibles were used.

I agree that these instances are statistically insignificant. It approaches the number of "Home Alone" references in conference by a member of the First Presidency (1). And doesn't come close to the number of mentions of Edgar Guest or Eliza Wheeler Wilcox poems or sundry musicals.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Nevo

[Nevo]

...and the New Jerusalem Bible.

It is said that J.R.R. Tolkien had a hand in the original Jerusalem Bible, contributing drafts of Jonah and Job. I don't know how much, if any, of his work survives in the New Jerusalem Bible. Maybe someone can run a wordprint study.