Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Does The Church Use The King James Version?

Pahoran

By Pahoran
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Saints Alive Veteran

Saints Alive

Posted
Posted

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

nor is it the most common, actually a lot of Christians criticize us for still using the KJV. I believe most denominations use the NIV.
MormonMason Mentor

MormonMason

Posted
Posted (edited)

NIV also is based upon an outdated version of the Greek New Testament, with some twists of its own (the translators created their own Greek New Testament cobbled together from some older versions of the Greek New Testament). TNIV is more up-to-date. I prefer the KJV, however--when I am reading an English version of the Bible, that is. I love the style and flow of the language. It took a short bit to learn my way around it many years ago, but the effort was well worth it. Of course, the LDS version of the KJV has all sorts of clarification footnotes for troublesome passages. I did not have the benefit of one of those KJV editions when I first came to believe in Christ but highly recommend its use for those LDS who have problems with the language and style of the KJV.

A number of modern translations like NIV, and its successor, TNIV, have translations that are based more upon modern commentaries than upon the Greek text of the NT itself in some places. Romans 4:17 is such a passage with the TNIV and NASB versions. This passage containing a Greek comparative particle is made by translators into an explicit reference to creatio ex nihilo. The Greek text itself by no means teaches that dogma, yet the translators went with a modern commentary and inserted the idea into the translation rather than rendering as a comparative.

No translation I am aware of translates Genesis 20:13 literally or even close to accurately. Only one translation admits that the translators translate difficult passages with a rigid, Evangelical theology as its basis, and that was the Living Bible. The New Living Bible omits that admission while still maintaining the same translation tradition and methodology. NRSV was one of the first translations to incorporate readings from various of the Dead Sea Scrolls but even this translation has issues.

Frankly, all translations have varying problems, nonetheless. Articles of Faith 8 was right on the money when it comes to translations.

As to the KJV, it once was the most popular and best-selling Bible. It now (as of 2010) sits as the second best selling Bible, so a lot of Christians still are using it.

Edited by MormonMason
1
maklelan Experienced

maklelan

Posted
Posted

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.

The problem is not cost, the problem is that the copyright owners (mainly the United Bible Societies) do not like to give permission to the LDS church to publish their own editions of their Bibles. This is why the LDS edition of the Spanish Bible that came out three years ago had to be a revision of an edition from the public domain (the same is currently being done for Portuguese).

paulpatter Apprentice

paulpatter

Posted
Posted

Regardless of how you feel about the KJV, there are two instructive/enlightening articles in the summer, 2012 issue of Dialogue: "The King James Bible and the Future of Missionary Work," by Grant Hardy; and "Unity and the King James Bible," by Ronan James Head. Both articles provide high-protein spiritual food for thought.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Please...for the love of God! Tell me you aren't serious with this statement.

Sleeper Cell...no way.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...