cinepro Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) I love these English-centric discussions of the LDS approach to the Bible. We treat our preferred English translations of the Bible and Book of Mormon as if they were so precious, and then every other language gets different (and hopefully better) versions as needed. It is astounding to me that, if our Prophets have the same gifts Joseph Smith did, there hasn't been any update to the translations of the Bible and Book of Mormon through that channel. It's like that part of Mormonism died when Joseph Smith did, which is really odd, all things considered. (To be fair, I can understand the primacy we give to the English language of The Book of Mormon, but the reasons we come up with for adhering to the KJV can be a little...thin.) Edited July 18, 2014 by cinepro 1
mnn727 Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 I love modern versions but they all have their problems and would need a re-write before they could be accepted by the Church. The "one and only" goes against LDS Doctrine. John 3:16New International Version (NIV)16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
mnn727 Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 Mine is a different take on the reason behind the church's position on the KJV. Researchers at Liverpool University have recently published interesting findings relating to the effect of classic English on the human brain. Philip Davis, professor at the university, along with his research group, has monitored the electrical activity in the brains of individuals as they read literature from Bard authors including Shakespeare, Wadsworth, and others. Utilizing high-tech MRI scanners, they can see which areas of the brain are activated with reading and the degree to which the brain is stimulated by this activity. The research group has found interesting differences in brain activity when people read classical literature compared to more modern texts. It turns out that when people read the works of Shakespeare and other Elizabethan texts, the brain activity increases significantly more than when other forms of literature are read. That's the part of the brain that deals with frustration lighting up.
MiserereNobis Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 Here is an interesting book on the history of the translation of the Bible into English beginning with Wycliff and ending with the KJV. It is an accessible layman's book yet scholarly as well. It does a good job of placing the act of translation into the greater context of Catholicism vs. protestantism. Wide as the Waters Those of you who love the KJV might be interested in looking into the Douay-Rheims bible. It is interesting how the two interacted with each other, despite being on opposite sides of the Catholic/protestant issue.
cinepro Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 I love modern versions but they all have their problems and would need a re-write before they could be accepted by the Church. The "one and only" goes against LDS Doctrine. You don't say...
mnn727 Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 You don't say...Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing however: "Only begotten" and "one and only" have two different meanings in my thinking.
cinepro Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing however: "Only begotten" and "one and only" have two different meanings in my thinking. "Two different meanings in my thinking" doesn't mean "goes against LDS doctrine." It's obviously easily reconcilable to simply say that "one and only" refers to Jesus being the only begotten son. We do far worse to fit the KJV into our "doctrine".
DJBrown Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 Or it's just that the brain must be more attentive and active to interpret vernacular and syntax to which it's not accustomed. We conserve the most cognitive effort with language that is simple and familiar. In other words, the more contemporary and proximate to your own way of speaking and writing, the less work the brain has to do to understand it. That is one possible explanation. But I don't think anybody can say for sure. I think this guy's research into Shakespeare's phraseology and effect on the brain is very interesting.
Antoni Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I studied at bible college with one of the NIV translators. It was a real eye opener him telling us his stories of the politics that were involved with the NIV translation. For me - I love the KJV - bear in mind most of it is based on Tyndale's translation - so it is literally the work of a martyr. The NIV was much more of a commercial exercise. - Zondervan who own rights to NIV are owned by Rupert Murdoch's media empire. The KJV's lyrical qualities and old english I find easier to memorise and certainly it sounds more eloquent. The ESV is far to biased to an evangelical mindset for me. Personally I also use the NRSV (anglicised edition ) including the NRSV Apocrypha. (also have the Cambridge Study edition of the NRSV which I used at bible college) The church using the KJV means they don't have to pay a copyright which is another additional bonus in my mind. Edited July 21, 2014 by Antoni
mnn727 Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) The KJV's lyrical qualities and old english I find easier to memorise and certainly it sounds more eloquent. For you it may work, for others (including me) it does not, it actually prevents many people(including me) from reading it for comprehension, many folk read a little bit of it and put it away forever, just like they do Shakespeare (totally incomprehensible to me). There is nothing wrong with reading in your own daily language using terms and expressions you are familiar with. Its not any less majestic or inspirational, in fact I would argue its more so of both as you can understand what its saying. Edited July 21, 2014 by mnn727
Recommended Posts