Why Does The Church Use The King James Version?

[cinepro]

The Church has its own printed edition of the Bible. If it were to use a version with a current copyright in the manner the KJV is used (e.g. with references to the BoM), they would need to get permission from the copyright holder, and would also need to pay royalties to the copyright holder.

No such considerations exist for the KJV.

I think we should do it, and just pay for it with non-tithing funds.

[Stargazer]

Many churches use these bible translations with no copyright problem, because any quotations in church or in church publications are in almost every conceivable case "fair use" under the copyright laws.

Assume someone wanted to get together a discussion group to talk about Tom Clancy's novels. They each buy a copy and sit around to discuss the books, their characters, and their plots. The copyright holder cannot prevent them from doing it, and wouldn't want to, but he can definitely stop them from issuing their own editions of the books.

Same goes for reviews of Clancy's books, and even scholarly treatises about them.

KJV is free to copy, free to print. You can even modify its text to suit your desires.

Not so the NIV.

[Stargazer]

I think we should do it, and just pay for it with non-tithing funds.

Oh, you're a scream.

But its not necessary; just take the royalties out of the income from the book.

[The Nehor]

I think we should do it, and just pay for it with non-tithing funds.

Fast Offering funds it is. Who else is sick of those lazy freeloaders getting it all?

[Cobalt-70]

The Church has its own printed edition of the Bible. If it were to use a version with a current copyright in the manner the KJV is used (e.g. with references to the BoM), they would need to get permission from the copyright holder, and would also need to pay royalties to the copyright holder.

No such considerations exist for the KJV.

They would if the LDS Church wanted, for example, to publish an "LDS Edition" of the NIV or NRSV. It probably wouldn't be that expensive, and the church could pass any increased cost along to the customer. It would have to pay a license fee for the church's website and LDS apps, too, but that probably wouldn't be very expensive, either.

[cinepro]

KJV is free to copy, free to print. You can even modify its text to suit your desires.

Not so the NIV.

Wow. Good thing the KJV was out of copyright, or we might never have gotten the JST. Which, ironically, was copyrighted by the RLDS?

And just think of the claim against The Book of Mormon (which, ironically, Joseph Smith copyrighted). That would have been an interesting court case!

Edited March 1, 2013 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

Assume someone wanted to get together a discussion group to talk about Tom Clancy's novels. They each buy a copy and sit around to discuss the books, their characters, and their plots. The copyright holder cannot prevent them from doing it, and wouldn't want to, but he can definitely stop them from issuing their own editions of the books.

Same goes for reviews of Clancy's books, and even scholarly treatises about them.

KJV is free to copy, free to print. You can even modify its text to suit your desires.

Not so the NIV.

The NIV and NRSV are free to copy, too, as long as it is fair use. You could probably copy a page and distribute it to your Sunday School class with no problem. We would just have to treat the bible like we do our LDS Hymnbook, much of which is copyrighted by sources other than the LDS Church.

[Cobalt-70]

And just think of the claim against The Book of Mormon (which, ironically, Joseph Smith copyrighted). That would have been an interesting court case!

If something is the word of God, should God own the copyright? If so, then how do we know when God wants to sue for copyright infringement, and who is God's lawyer?

[Five Solas]

Recently in another thread, someone offered a fairly classic anti-Mormon propaganda answer to this question: the Church "benefits" from using a translation in an older form of English because if people don't understand what the words really mean, they will think that the Bible supports LDS doctrine, when it really does not.

Spiteful insinuations (not to mention wholesale attacks upon the Church) of this nature cannot be taken seriously. The doctrine of Agency can of course be supported from an accurate understanding of the Bible -- in any translation -- at least as successfully as any form of deterministic elitism. Given that this "explanation" has been established to be without merit, what is the real reason for the Church continuing to use the KJV?

The King James Version of the Bible is, without question, the great monument of modern English literature. More than any other work -- probably more than all others combined -- it has grounded spoken and written English, and kept it from being tossed to and fro by every wind of fad, fashion and linguistic influence. In the 1830's, when the Church was founded, it was used by almost all Christian denominations in the English-speaking world. It gives us a common religious vocabulary and a common frame of reference with other Christians.

Another consideration is the fact that the Church is a conservative institution. That doesn't mean it never changes, but it does mean that when it does change something, it has to have a good reason to do so. Popularity is not high on its list of good reasons to change things.

Besides all that, the KJV is great literature, of a standard that more modern translations may aspire to, but have yet to attain. It is enjoyable to read. I like it.

Not that I get consulted about such questions, of course.

The Church has valid reasons to prefer and continue to use the KJV. The continued use thereof provides no excuse for anyone to manufacture nasty accusations.

Regards,

Pahoran

You go much too far praising the Anglican Church's Bible, IMO. Consider the 1560 Geneva Bible--a.k.a., Shakespeare’s Bible (and subsequent versions). Will you tell us the Protestants accomplished less? And keep in mind the KJV is 75%+ plagiarized William Tyndale. Credit where credit is due, Pahoran.

;0)

--Erik

[Damien the Leper]

My KJV is collecting dust. I only ever read when I'm bored or trying to understand other people's interpretation of it.

I prefer the RSV and ESV for both my academic and spiritual study. However, I refuse to use the Old Testament for Jewish studies. For that, I use Tanakh Translation of the Jewish Study Bible.

As for what Saints Alive said about the Community of Christ Book of Mormon, they currently use the Revised Authorized Version in place of the Authorized Version.

[Five Solas]

My KJV is collecting dust. I only ever read when I'm bored or trying to understand other people's interpretation of it.

I prefer the RSV and ESV for both my academic and spiritual study. However, I refuse to use the Old Testament for Jewish studies. For that, I use Tanakh Translation of the Jewish Study Bible.

As for what Saints Alive said about the Community of Christ Book of Mormon, they currently use the Revised Authorized Version in place of the Authorized Version.

I'm a fan of ESV, which my church uses, though I like NASB as well, and I keep my Catholic NAB nearby lest my Protestantism get completely out of hand.

;0)

I've read the 39 books in the JPS's translation of Tanakh. Although many of the renderings appear to be deliberately set against the New Testament--I think it was definitely worth the time I put into it.

--Erik

Edited March 2, 2013 by Five Solas

[Damien the Leper]

I took one look at your church's website and left immediately. I love my Reformed friends but Calvinism and the Acts 29 network are disasters. Mark Driscoll is a hack. I mean no disrespect to you, of course.

[Five Solas]

I took one look at your church's website and left immediately. I love my Reformed friends but Calvinism and the Acts 29 network are disasters. Mark Driscoll is a hack. I mean no disrespect to you, of course.

No worries. But I really would be interested in your Acts 29 criticism(s). On a seperate thread, perhaps.

[Damien the Leper]

I will work on a response for you and then start a thread.

[volgadon]

There are times for religion to be poetic (hymns, actual poetry, so Psalms and Song of Solomon get a pass) and times for it be informative. I have caught myself becoming lost in the language without searching for understanding.

Who says that the poetic cannot be informative, or that the informative cannot be poetic? To split the two is to render violence to language, literature, and teaching.

[Pahoran]

You go much too far praising the Anglican Church's Bible, IMO. Consider the 1560 Geneva Bible--a.k.a., Shakespeare’s Bible (and subsequent versions). Will you tell us the Protestants accomplished less?

The Anglicans are (and were) Protestants. Just so you know.

Just like non-Calvinists (such as Latter-day Saints) are also Christians. There's nothing remotely controversial about that.

And keep in mind the KJV is 75%+ plagiarized William Tyndale. Credit where credit is due, Pahoran.

;0)

--Erik

Oddly enough, as someone who didn't need an "alternative Bible" to tell me what "want" means, I was aware of the KJV's debt to Tyndale. I am also aware that people of a certain polemical orientation tend to fling about accusations of "plagiarism" rather injudiciously.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Alan]

As for what Saints Alive said about the Community of Christ Book of Mormon, they currently use the Revised Authorized Version in place of the Authorized Version.

I think that's stretching it a bit. It isn't easy to find a Communitarian that actually reads any version of the Book of Mormon. The Revised version isn't very good in my view. They have retained some of the thee's and thou's (where the Lord is speaking) for some reason, which makes for inconsistency; and there are a couple of glaring mistakes.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Alan

[Five Solas]

The Anglicans are (and were) Protestants. Just so you know.

My previous distinction notwithstanding, I'm actually not arguing this.

Just like non-Calvinists (such as Latter-day Saints) are also Christians. There's nothing remotely controversial about that.

As if somewhere I'd asserted one must subscribe to the "Five Points" to be a Christian and you've been sent to set the record straight. Gimme a break, Pahoran

Oddly enough, as someone who didn't need an "alternative Bible" to tell me what "want" means, I was aware of the KJV's debt to Tyndale. I am also aware that people of a certain polemical orientation tend to fling about accusations of "plagiarism" rather injudiciously.

Regards,

Pahoran

Do you engage with everyone who disputes your theology like this or am I special?

--Erik

[rodheadlee]

Do you engage with everyone who disputes your theology like this or am I special?

--Erik

You're not special. Pahoran is an excellent defender of all things LDS.

Edited March 4, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Five Solas]

You're not special. Pahoran is an excellent defender of all things LDS.

Well, I kinda suspected, my mother's opinion notwithstanding.

;0)

But regarding Pahoran's most excellent defense--do you really think this sort of thing plays well outside of partisan circles? It seems way over the top to me, but maybe I just don't have the right spirit to receive it properly.

--Erik

[Pahoran]

Well, I kinda suspected, my mother's opinion notwithstanding.

;0)

But regarding Pahoran's most excellent defense--do you really think this sort of thing plays well outside of partisan circles? It seems way over the top to me, but maybe I just don't have the right spirit to receive it properly.

--Erik

What's your problem, exactly?

The standards of scholarly citation that are the norm today simply did not apply in 1611. Accusing the King James translators of "plagiarism," which is sometimes criminal and always dishonest, looks at very least like an example of historical presentism. I do not know of any attempt on their part to deny or downplay the extent to which they borrowed from Tyndale. Do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

What's your problem, exactly?

The standards of scholarly citation that are the norm today simply did not apply in 1611. Accusing the King James translators of "plagiarism," which is sometimes criminal and always dishonest, looks at very least like an example of historical presentism. I do not know of any attempt on their part to deny or downplay the extent to which they borrowed from Tyndale. Do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Some of the more modern versions have undergone revisions. For example, the New Revised Standard Version is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, which in turn is a revision of the American Standard Version (hence the word revised in the title).

It is as absurd to call the King James Version a "plagiarism" of the Tyndale Bible as it would be to call the NRS a plagiarism of the RSV.

Or, for that matter, to cal the New King James Verson a plagiarism of the King James Version.

You're right, the word plagiarism tends to be used excessively and inappropriately as a polemical weapon theses days.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[freedad]

The KJV of the Bible is used because it puts us on common ground with other Christians and makes us less outsiders. Also, it is the best English translation of the Bible. Having said that, I prefer Joseph Smith's Inspired Version. I have a copy and it makes the Bible a better experience to read. Easier to understand and more doctrinally sound.

[The Nehor]

Who says that the poetic cannot be informative, or that the informative cannot be poetic? To split the two is to render violence to language, literature, and teaching.

They can but the experience is different. In my opinion a poetic style detracts from many of the episodes in the New Testament. It conveys a mythical quality in events that need to be brutally and starkly real.

[Alan]

Also, it is the best English translation of the Bible.

It isn't the best English translation, if best means accurate.