Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 So I just got my New International Version of the Bible. From what I've researched its the most thorough, well researched and translated Bible ever. Is anyone familiar with it? The best thing too is its in modern English. I don't know why the Church just hasn't canonized it and moved on from the KJV. Any ideas on why that's so?
strappinglad Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Copyright issues. Just for fun I picked John 3:16 and read the multitude of bible translations. One can see all the many ways to say the same thing , and also see the agendas of the translators. https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16 Edited July 16, 2014 by strappinglad 2
rayhale Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Copyright, and the LDS Church has spent a lot of time and money with the KJV, also I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Joseph Smith read the KJV. Edited July 16, 2014 by rayhale 1
halconero Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Naw man, I'd go with the New Oxford Annotated Bible. THAT's the best one academically.
Doctrine 612 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Missing scriptures acts8:37 and many more, also it was translated from scrolls that were found in an ancient garbage pile. They were put there for good reason, also look at cor 7 it's not good to marry? What were they thinking.The king james is not perfect but it is closer to the truth with the jst., I'll be looking at the inspired edition 1
halconero Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Missing scriptures acts8:37 and many more Acts 8:37 is not in our oldest and best manuscripts. also it was translated from scrolls that were found in an ancient garbage pile. Simply not true, it was made with manuscripts from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Novum Testamentum Graeca. I have my own criticisms of the NIV, but its manuscript base isn't one of them. They were put there for good reason, also look at cor 7 it's not good to marry? What were they thinking. Neither the KJV nor the NIV say that it's not good to marry. What they both say, and this is consistent with Paul's thinking on sexuality, is that he preferred celibacy for himself and his followers, but that marriage was an honourable alternative for those who couldn't remain chaste. Yes, yes, yes, I know this doesn't line up perfectly with Latter-day Saint teachings on marriage, but you can take this a number of ways. 1) The epistles were much like Stake Conference addresses, in that Paul was addressing specific local issues and not general doctrine 2) If you can't handle that then we have that handy dandy "as far as it is translated correctly" clause in the articles of faith. The king james is not perfect but it is closer to the truth with the jst., I'll be looking at the inspired edition Eh, the KJV is an English literary masterpiece, but a poor study bible. Edited July 16, 2014 by halconero 4
Tacenda Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 So I just got my New International Version of the Bible. From what I've researched its the most thorough, well researched and translated Bible ever. Is anyone familiar with it? The best thing too is its in modern English. I don't know why the Church just hasn't canonized it and moved on from the KJV. Any ideas on why that's so?I think it'd take alot for that to happen. The church has stated that it's the preferred scripture text. I wish it had been the NIV all along, I'd probably had been really good at reading them, so much better, IMO. I think a lot of members would be afraid to have them, especially at church.
Calm Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I wish it had been the NIV all along.....Would have been kind of difficult for the early saints though since the NIV has only been around since the 1970s.
strappinglad Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 With today's tech you can have any translation you want or as many as you want , in the palm of your hand. No one will be the wiser. It's not like most of the congregation will pull their nose out of their own tech to notice what you are doing .
Tacenda Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Would have been kind of difficult for the early saints though since the NIV has only been around since the 1970s.Oh, you're right.
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) I knew one of the translators. The NIV came under significant criticism because it didn't rely upon a consensus translation method but what is known as an eclectic method. That is, one or two translators translated a particular book or books and they were entrusted to use their judgment to rely upon the best MSS rather than derive, as other translations did, from a consensus translation from a consensus of MSS. As a result, the NIV has a definite evangelical bent. Barlow talks about this in his book about the Mormons and the Bible, citing a short article from the Expository Times on the subject. Or to put it more simply, if one wanted to know Californians' opinion on birth control, you could either conduct a systematic statistical poll or go out in the street and talk to two or three people and then pick the answer you like best. The NIV follows the latter methodology. Edited July 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett 1
halconero Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I knew one of the translators. The NIV came under significant criticism because it didn't rely upon a consensus translation method but what is known as an eclectic method. That is, one or two translators translated a particular book or books and they were entrusted to use their judgment to rely upon the best MSS rather than derive, as other translations did, from a consensus translation from a consensus of MSS. As a result, the NIV has a definite evangelical bent. Barlow talks about this in his book about the Mormons and the Bible, citing a short article from the Expository Times on the subject. Or to put it more simply, if one wanted to know Californians' opinion on birth control, you could either conduct a systematic statistical poll or go out in the street and talk to two or three people and then pick the answer you like best. The NIV follows the latter methodology. Mhm. I find the NRSV a much better translation, and it's a particular favourite of many non-mormon theologians. The NIV has a definite evangelical slant, whereas the NRSV is pretty ecumenical, it was put together by Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and even a Jewish scholar. Actually, the Oxford Annotated, which I favour, is basically the NRSV on steroids, with more footnotes, maps, essays, etc.
Storm Rider Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I think it'd take alot for that to happen. The church has stated that it's the preferred scripture text.I wish it had been the NIV all along, I'd probably had been really good at reading them, so much better, IMO. I think a lot of members would be afraid to have them, especially at church. Do you think so? I have several different translations and have used them in some lessons (not many, but when appropriate) during Church. When I want to read scripture, I still choose the KJV.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) So I just got my New International Version of the Bible. From what I've researched its the most thorough, well researched and translated Bible ever. Is anyone familiar with it? The best thing too is its in modern English. I don't know why the Church just hasn't canonized it and moved on from the KJV. Any ideas on why that's so?Because it doesn't include the inspired version either. Bible translation becomes irrelevant when Joseph added and altered whatever he was moved to change- parsing words became irrelevant to the overall meaning Neither the BOM nor the BOA are conventional literal translations, so why should exact translation of the bible be important? Edited July 16, 2014 by mfbukowski
halconero Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Because it doesn't include the inspired version either. Bible translation becomes irrelevant when Joseph added and altered whatever he was moved to change- parsing words became irrelevant to the overall meaning Neither the BOM nor the BOA are conventional literal translations, so why should exact translation of the bible be important? I disagree. We lose meaning, true doctrine, and valuable insights with shoddy translation or antiqued language. Bart Ehrman gives a good example on why accurate translation is important theologically: He once heard a sermon based on the KJV Philippians 3:20, which states that our "conversation is in heaven." The pastor used this verse to condemn vulgar language, and promote wholesome speech. That is all well and good, and most definitely true, but that's not what Philippians 3:20 means.You see, in the roughly 400 years since the translation of the KJV, the word conversation had shifted from its then-meaning of "citizenship" to "interactive speech." Paul is really discussing the Saints membership in the Kingdom of God and uses it to discuss the Saints rights to Resurrection. Justifying not looking for the most accurate, literal translation of God's word simply because Joseph Smith wrote an inspired translation/commentary on it is just plain silly (and I use that in its 17th century meaning, rather than the contemporary: crazy-talk). Edit: I want to add that I understand why the Church uses the KJV. It's easier from a legal standpoint, we need standardization in teaching frequently, and it was the translation used in the JST. It is one of, if not the greatest contributor to the English language and literature, even dwarfing Shakespeare. The poetry of the KJV is beautiful, has moved me, and helped me tune myself to the Holy Spirit in many instances. That doesn't change my opinion, however, that there are translations out there that give us a clearer picture of the author's original intent and message. Edited July 16, 2014 by halconero 3
Guest Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) So I just got my New International Version of the Bible. From what I've researched its the most thorough, well researched and translated Bible ever. Is anyone familiar with it? The best thing too is its in modern English. I don't know why the Church just hasn't canonized it and moved on from the KJV. Any ideas on why that's so?The KJV is a poetic masterpiece which lifts the Spirit when read...To me the NIV, just lies there and does little for me. God bless him for bringing this to light. Untold millions have come out of darkness because OT the KJV. Edited July 17, 2014 by Pa Pa
David T Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) NIV has deliberate mistranslations to try to foster myth of 'no contradictions in the Bible' and for other theological reasons. The NRSV is just as readable as the NIV, but FAR more accurate. NRSV is definitely my Bible of choice. Edited July 16, 2014 by David T
Hamilton Porter Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) I'll add my voice to all the others on how much the NIV sucks. I've heard Catholics complain that whenever "tradition" is a bad thing they translate it as "tradition." Whenever "tradition" is a good thing they translate it as "teachings." Also, in Ps. 82 they put "gods" in parentheses. Ha. Ha. Ha. I prefer the New World Translation over the NIV. Edited July 16, 2014 by Hamilton Porter
Gervin Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Naw man, I'd go with the New Oxford Annotated Bible. THAT's the best one academically.Agree. NIV is easy on the ears but not so challenging for the mind. I enjoy the poetics of the KJV. Really enjoy the Oxford cross-references and many of the Index features.
David T Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Naw man, I'd go with the New Oxford Annotated Bible. THAT's the best one academically. That uses the NRSV translation. The HarperCollins Study Bible is also a great academic resource, that also uses the NRSV translation, and has its notes and introductions written by members of the Society for Biblical Literature. I enjoy and use that one a lot. No single translation or set of study notes is perfect, but the NRSV is definitely one of the better ones.
Hamilton Porter Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I like the RSV better than the NRSV because the NRSV uses gender-neutral language. HarperCollins Study Bible is the one I use. It's very Mormon-friendly.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) I disagree. We lose meaning, true doctrine, and valuable insights with shoddy translation or antiqued language. Bart Ehrman gives a good example on why accurate translation is important theologically: He once heard a sermon based on the KJV Philippians 3:20, which states that our "conversation is in heaven." The pastor used this verse to condemn vulgar language, and promote wholesome speech. That is all well and good, and most definitely true, but that's not what Philippians 3:20 means.You see, in the roughly 400 years since the translation of the KJV, the word conversation had shifted from its then-meaning of "citizenship" to "interactive speech." Paul is really discussing the Saints membership in the Kingdom of God and uses it to discuss the Saints rights to Resurrection. Justifying not looking for the most accurate, literal translation of God's word simply because Joseph Smith wrote an inspired translation/commentary on it is just plain silly (and I use that in its 17th century meaning, rather than the contemporary: crazy-talk). Edit: I want to add that I understand why the Church uses the KJV. It's easier from a legal standpoint, we need standardization in teaching frequently, and it was the translation used in the JST. It is one of, if not the greatest contributor to the English language and literature, even dwarfing Shakespeare. The poetry of the KJV is beautiful, has moved me, and helped me tune myself to the Holy Spirit in many instances. That doesn't change my opinion, however, that there are translations out there that give us a clearer picture of the author's original intent and message.You make my point well for me. If it is literature you want, we have it. If it is doctrine you want, Joseph changed it all, so all biblical doctrinal content must be weighed against Joseph's revisions for consistency anyway. That is clearly the meaning of "insofar as it is translated correctly". So for us, if any of our standard works is to be regarded as "inspired fiction", it would be the bible. As you imply yourself, the message the preacher delivered in your example was a good one regardless of if it was what Paul intended, and besides, ANY message is subject to deciding if we would consider it doctrinal today. An example of that is Paul teaching that there is no marriage in heaven. We just throw that out as a mistranslation and do mental gymnastics to make it fit our doctrine. I have no problem with that, we have an open Canon and can reinterpret it as the 15 see fit. But even if we can get past all the problems of presentism in translation, which I am convinced we cannot, the true LDS interpretation always trumps the literal translation anyway. I am surprised you would use Bart Ehrman as a source in this instance. Clearly from our pov he doesn't get any of this, and is not even close to the LDS understanding of the 8th article of faith. Edited July 16, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 And personal testimony SHOULD trump it all anyway, because if we don't believe it personally, it all becomes personally irrelevant anyway. If it isn't written in the tablets of the heart, it doesn't matter where else it is written. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I prefer the New World Translation over the NIV.Really? Is that not the translation produced by the JW?
Recommended Posts