DBMormon Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 We have created a culture that has an allegiance to the KJV. While we certainly can't have people using various translations in Sunday School, we have almost created a culture that sees the KJV as God's version and others as less than. Begininning to being more open to other translations I was curious what translations you like the best and why? Also I listen to a lot of audio, MP3, podcasts ect. So I have lately been listening to NIV Dramatic translation audio. One example is found herehttp://www.houseandhome.org/niv-bible-download Also if we care to discuss why the KJV needs to be the standard as it truly is superior in some way, please feel free to make your point.
DBMormon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 Catholic RSV by Ignatius PressValentius... what do you like about this translation? what are it's strengths and flaws?
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It maintains covenant and is an appropriate working translation authorized by the Bishop of Rome.
DBMormon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 It maintains covenant and is an appropriate working translation authorized by the Bishop of Rome.Valentius - Are you Catholic now? I am interested in the path you have taken since Mormonism and how you got there. You can PM me if this is something you wish not to speak of publicly. Also feel free to not answer as well.Bill
DBMormon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 NRSV. What do you like about this? how is it different then the NIV?
Abulafia Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It was recommended to me by my tutor for its accuracy and use of the most recent manuscript discoveries. It was compliled by an ecumenical group of scholars so offers a good balance in controversial areas.
Yirgacheffe Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I like the The New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV with the Apocrypha, I like the translation, and I like all the extra stuff in it, the notes essays, maps. 2
DBMormon Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 cool everyone. Does anyone feel we are Doctrinally bound to the KJV or could we see the Church someday shifting to a more updated, more accurate translation?
Alan Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I like the NIV, especially for the Old Testament. The KJV is an English language phenomenon. When I lived in Germany the church used a modern German language edition of the Bible - not even the German edition Joseph Smith said was the most accurate Bible there was. However, I believe there will come a time when the church will either relax it's insistence on the KJV or favour another version. However, one of the problems may well be copyright. Most of the serious alternative versions are still under copyright and the church would need permission to use it. This would be costly, and could also create problems when bound with, or cross referenced/footnoted with other restoration scriptures.Also, because of the very KJV nature of the BofM, I think the church would have to revise this scripture to reflect a more modern language style.I would personally applaud all of this as an increasingly unchurched population here in the UK find the scriptures difficult to comprehend. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) We have created a culture that has an allegiance to the KJV. While we certainly can't have people using various translations in Sunday School, we have almost created a culture that sees the KJV as God's version and others as less than. Begininning to being more open to other translations I was curious what translations you like the best and why? ...................................................... Also if we care to discuss why the KJV needs to be the standard as it truly is superior in some way, please feel free to make your point.The Southern Baptist Convention and some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) have rejected the 2011 version of the NIV for accuracy concerns (mainly for adoption of gender-neutral language and alteration of passages having to do with homosexuality). I use a good many translations of the Bible in my own work, including the New Jerusalem Bible (a Roman Catholic approved version), the Oxford Annotated NRSV, and some modern reproductions of the Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV, among others. One advantage all of them have is that they contain the full Apocrypha, which Joseph Smith had in his KJV Bible. Another thing I like about the NJB and the NRSV is that they are laid out as one page of text, according to the poetic or literary structure, rather than in dense double-column pages. Also the notes and essays are very helpful and scholarly. Aside from all the articles and books which came out in and around 2011 (celebrating the 500th anniversary of the KJVersion), a thoroughgoing and excellent set of reasons for using the KJV was long ago provided by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Why the King James Version? (SLC: Deseret Book, 1956), and it is now available from Deseret Book and Amazon in a Kindle version. In specific response to that and the continued LDS use of the KJV, see Professor Philip L. Barlow (USU), “Why the King James Version? From the Common to the Official Bible of Mormonism,” Dialogue, 22/2 (Summer 1989), 19-42, online at http://66.147.244.190/~dialogu5/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V22N02_21.pdf . This matter has been explored on this board recently at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62419-bible-versions/?hl=%2Bbible+%2Btranslations#entry1209326239 , where I said: Anyone interested in scholarly evaluations of the various translations of the Bible, ought to obtain the free eBook by Leonard J. Greenspoon and Harvey Minkoff, The Holy Bible: A Buyer’s Guide (BAS, 2013), free eBook, at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/the-holy-bible-a-buyers-guide/ . It covers 33 different versions. So, Bill, maybe you should interview Professor Barlow. Or Professor Greenspoon. Or both. Edited February 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 3
Coreyb Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I like the NIV, especially for the Old Testament. The KJV is an English language phenomenon. When I lived in Germany the church used a modern German language edition of the Bible - not even the German edition Joseph Smith said was the most accurate Bible there was. However, I believe there will come a time when the church will either relax it's insistence on the KJV or favour another version. However, one of the problems may well be copyright. Most of the serious alternative versions are still under copyright and the church would need permission to use it. This would be costly, and could also create problems when bound with, or cross referenced/footnoted with other restoration scriptures.Also, because of the very KJV nature of the BofM, I think the church would have to revise this scripture to reflect a more modern language style.I would personally applaud all of this as an increasingly unchurched population here in the UK find the scriptures difficult to comprehend.We would probably need to update the D&C too. Most of it is very King Jamesy
Five Solas Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 ESV is my regular (it's what we use at Mars Hill Church). If I'm making a concerted study of a passage, I may use several modern English translations, including the Catholic NAB, the NASB and for Old Testament work, the 1985 JPS Tanakh. Old translations I own and occasionally enjoy include the 1560 Geneva Bible (a.k.a., "Shakespeare's Bible"--alas, it's not an original) and William Tyndale's New Testament (with letter and punctuation updates by David Daniell). I'm a bit of a geek and accumulated something of a library over the years...;0) --Erik
readstoomuch Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 ESV. Has majesty of KJV with modern words for troublesome passages. 1
cipriano Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 The Message. Sure it's beautiful but Elizabethian English makes no sense to me.
Storm Rider Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 It is only a matter of being exposed to it. Anyone can easily understand it given time and familiarity. If you don't spend the time you will comprehend it. For me I have been exposed to it all my life. Though I have many different Bibles, I most enjoy and love the KJV for its beauty; it puts me in a more spiritual frame of mind than others. However, use what you are most comfortable with; the point is to read and study the word of God. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) The King James Version is the one that was widely used at the time the gospel was restored in this dispensation. Hence, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that have come forth in latter days are expressed in phrasing consistent with the King James Version. The Southern Baptist Convention and some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) have rejected the 2011 version of the NIV for accuracy concerns (mainly for adoption of gender-neutral language and alteration of passages having to do with homosexuality). This illustrates that more modern translations are prone to the influence of sectarian and political priorities and agenda that might make them problematic for use in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the above and perhaps other reasons, I don't see the Church shifting away from its official use of the King James Version any time soon, if ever. I can't think of a compelling reason why it should. Edited February 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
David T Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) I don't see the Church shifting away from its official use of the King James Version any time soon, if ever. I can't think of a compelling reason why it should. Grant Hardy wrote a compelling paper giving practical reasons. See an introduction to his paper here which summarizies a small number of his points, and also has a link to a pdf of the paper itself, here: The King James Version and the Future of Missionary Work. I recommend it, which has personal experiences where the KJV was a hindrance. See especially the appendix where he lists scriptures that are universally used and assigned and recommended for Missionaries to use in Preach my Gospel based on the KJV, but do not properly translate to mean the same thing as it appears in the KJV in any other language, or even other english Translations (more accurate modern renderings are given as examples). Edited February 19, 2014 by David T 3
Damien the Leper Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 ESV is my regular (it's what we use at Mars Hill Church). If I'm making a concerted study of a passage, I may use several modern English translations, including the Catholic NAB, the NASB and for Old Testament work, the 1985 JPS Tanakh. Old translations I own and occasionally enjoy include the 1560 Geneva Bible (a.k.a., "Shakespeare's Bible"--alas, it's not an original) and William Tyndale's New Testament (with letter and punctuation updates by David Daniell). I'm a bit of a geek and accumulated something of a library over the years...;0) --Erik Just don't use the ESV Study Bible for accurate theology. It has great historiography but that's it.
Damien the Leper Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 The Message. Sure it's beautiful but Elizabethian English makes no sense to me. Heresy!
David T Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) I adore my HarperCollins NRSV Study Bible. Enjoy the translation, which includes the Apocrypha, and especially the great scholastic and contectual notes by members of the Society of Biblical Literature. I love using Friedman's Bible With Sources Revealed to follow the different strands of the JEPD+ documents in the Penteteuch (each source is a different color/font). It's awesome being able to read through each source by itself, and see the continuity and themes (and differences!) unique to each source. Also includes a helpful primer on the Documentary Hypothesis for newbies. For NT, I've enjoyed NT Wright's Kingdom New Testament. It's a fresh accurate rendering, attempting also to capture the rhetorical flavor of how the original would have sounded to its audience. I've heard great things about Alter's Five Books of Moses and other OT volumes, for their literary and scholastic merit. Edited February 19, 2014 by David T 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Grant Hardy wrote a compelling paper giving practical reasons. See an introduction to his paper here which summarizies a small number of his points, and also has a link to a pdf of the paper itself, here: The King James Version and the Future of Missionary Work. I recommend it, which has personal experiences where the KJV was a hindrance. See especially the appendix where he lists scriptures that are universally used and assigned and recommended for Missionaries to use in Preach my Gospel based on the KJV, but do not properly translate to mean the same thing as it appears in the KJV in any other language, or even other english Translations (more accurate modern renderings are given as examples).The reasons Hardy gives here are worthy of consideration, but not compelling. I did like this paragraph in his introduction: One solution would be to continue with the KJV as our official Bible, while allowing the supplemental use of careful, respectful, widely-accepted translations like the NRSV. It is often possible to grasp the meaning of the KJV after reading the same verse in a modern translation. This approach would offer opportunities to discover additional truths and witnesses of the Restoration in newer versions, and it would also honor the legacy of Joseph Smith, who not only used other translations (some of which he declared superior to the KJV) but also studied Hebrew himself to better understand God’s word in a form closer to the original. Seems to me that solution is already with us. There is nothing to stop us from reading other translations, even as we continue to regard KJV as the official one. I keep a dozen or so translations on my iPod touch for comparison and study. 2
Recommended Posts