snowflake Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 The 8th article of faith states: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly? And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study?
CV75 Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, snowflake said: The 8th article of faith states: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly? And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study? In one way, "translated" refers to the word of God and not the Bible text. The word of God is translated, or transmitted or brought, from His Spirit to our spirit. This is accomplished through our good faith efforts, the light of Christ, and on occasion, the power of the Holy Ghost bearing witness of the truth of the word of God. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ideally understood by the gift of the Holy Ghost, which can only be gotten after baptism by proper authority. A o F #8 suggests that the Bible text correctly renders the word of God to an extent, and the Book of Mormon renders it correctly. Because they are both the word of God, and the Book of Mormon is correct, it can be used to more correctly translate the word of God rendered in the Bible. Because it is the keystone of our religion, modern revelation and other facets of the Restoration that it foretells can be used to correctly translate the word of God rendered in the Bible. All these tools can be used to bring the word of God from His Spirit to ours.
Gray Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: The 8th article of faith states: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly? And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study? Some Bible translations are better than others. The KJV is not one of the more accurate versions. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: The 8th article of faith states: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly? And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study? One of the earliest impulses of the early LDS movement was that God is speaking again, that he isn't silent, and when Rigdon joined he brought a large emphasis on the gifts of the spirit with him, as a manifestation of God dealing with humans again. Joseph was certainly pushing back against some of the deist and other ideas during his time period. I wonder, thinking about the context of the early church, if this article of faith is more about the ways we receive the words of God, do we take them seriously, do we translate their meaning in our lives in real ways, believing in a God that has tangible and real effect in our lives. I'm thinking along those lines. I don't think their context was primarily to find accuracy with the original ancient texts, this may have been part of it, but I think it was a smaller part. I think they were attempting to give a new voice to God having an influential place in our lives.
snowflake Posted October 25, 2016 Author Posted October 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, CV75 said: In one way, "translated" refers to the word of God and not the Bible text. The word of God is translated, or transmitted or brought, from His Spirit to our spirit. This is accomplished through our good faith efforts, the light of Christ, and on occasion, the power of the Holy Ghost bearing witness of the truth of the word of God. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ideally understood by the gift of the Holy Ghost, which can only be gotten after baptism by proper authority. A o F #8 suggests that the Bible text correctly renders the word of God to an extent, and the Book of Mormon renders it correctly. Because they are both the word of God, and the Book of Mormon is correct, it can be used to more correctly translate the word of God rendered in the Bible. Because it is the keystone of our religion, modern revelation and other facets of the Restoration that it foretells can be used to correctly translate the word of God rendered in the Bible. All these tools can be used to bring the word of God from His Spirit to ours. Thanks for your response. I'm a little confused by your answer, what I am asking is should I trust the text of the Bible as "being translated correctly" or not? I know the LDS use the KJV, has that been "translated correctly"?
snowflake Posted October 25, 2016 Author Posted October 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, Gray said: Some Bible translations are better than others. The KJV is not one of the more accurate versions. Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no?
bluebell Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, snowflake said: Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no? This is what it says in the LDS bible dictionary (which is included in almost all LDS copies of the scriptures, but it's not considered revelation or scripture itself)- With the discovery of more ancient manuscripts not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars. However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions. The newer versions are in many instances easier to read but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (A of F 1:8). Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (HC 1:245; 6:57.) The Church reveres and respects the Bible but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record. It affirms also that the Lord has given additional revelation through His prophets in the last days that sustains, supports, and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind. This was written quite a few decades ago, if i'm remembering correctly, so it's not as accurate as it once was. I think the general consensus is that there are other bible translations that are more doctrinally sound than the KJV. But, the church continues to use the KJV probably because of logistics-it's already set up with cross references, footnotes, etc. and the majority of LDS members use it. That could change sometime in the future I suppose. 4
hope_for_things Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, snowflake said: Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no? Tradition is one reason. The other I think is the link between the KJV and the BoM. So much of the BoM comes directly from the KJV and the language style is similar. You'd need to change the BoM and D&C if you updated the KJV into modern english, and I don't know that church leaders are confident enough to make those changes. Unfortunately, this keeps the general members back from the very insightful biblical scholarship that has been happening in the past 150 years, because we're stuck in a 19th century understanding of things. 1
Rain Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, snowflake said: Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no? This doesn't answer your question. I had a ward member who worked in the scripture department. He was our gospel doctrine teacher. He said that this had been discussed with some apostles and that they were aware of more correct versions, but decided against changing over. He never really said why they didn't change. I never got around to asking him why, though if I remember right copyright might have been one of the reasons. I have thought about it. It would be a huge expense to change things out. Perhaps they also felt the cost didn't justify the change at the time.
cdowis Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) "Translate" does not mean what you think it means. The dictionary can be very helpful. the act or process of translating something into a different language the act or process of changing something from one form to another Now we know, for example, that Enoch was "translated". I find it useful to think that in the context of the Bible being "translated correctly", it refers to the transmission of the original text into our published Bible. "We believe in the Bible as it was originally written and conveyed correctly into our Bible today." Edited October 25, 2016 by cdowis 3
Okrahomer Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Tradition is one reason. The other I think is the link between the KJV and the BoM. So much of the BoM comes directly from the KJV and the language style is similar. You'd need to change the BoM and D&C if you updated the KJV into modern english, and I don't know that church leaders are confident enough to make those changes. Unfortunately, this keeps the general members back from the very insightful biblical scholarship that has been happening in the past 150 years, because we're stuck in a 19th century understanding of things. I suppose you did not intend to offend "general members" (like me) by making us sound like we are all backward folk who abhor modern conveniences, but that's how your comment comes across. Even so, one wonders whether it's more important for the "general members" of the LDS Church to be up-to-date on the very latest insights offered by biblical scholarship; or if it's actually more important that as a group we are familiar with the Bible at all. Against your criticism, it's difficult to argue with the fact that as a group, we actually do seem to know more about the Bible than others do: see here. 2
Gray Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 39 minutes ago, snowflake said: Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no? Our other standard works are in pseudo KJV style. I suppose it would be jarring to use one of the better modern translations?
Gray Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: I suppose you did not intend to offend "general members" (like me) by making us sound like we are all backward folk who abhor modern conveniences, but that's how your comment comes across. Even so, one wonders whether it's more important for the "general members" of the LDS Church to be up-to-date on the very latest insights offered by biblical scholarship; or if it's actually more important that as a group we are familiar with the Bible at all. Against your criticism, it's difficult to argue with the fact that as a group, we actually do seem to know more about the Bible than others do: see here. Yes, that's true, although it's not really saying much. We read the Bible where many denominations that have only the Bible do not. But that doesn't mean we're up to date on the best Biblical scholarship.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Thanks for your response. I'm a little confused by your answer, what I am asking is should I trust the text of the Bible as "being translated correctly" or not? I know the LDS use the KJV, has that been "translated correctly"? What do you mean by "trust'? we're not biblical inerrantists if that's what you mean. In English speaking countries we use the KJV. In other non-English speaking countries we use whatever language version is available. 2
cdowis Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Why does the LDS church use the KJV as opposed to other versions? It seems they would want the one that has been "translated correctly" no? Statement fom the First Presidency Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of theBible for English-speaking members. The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.) Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations. While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments. Sincerely your brethren, Ezra Taft Benson Gordon B. Hinckley Thomas S. Monson 1
hope_for_things Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Okrahomer said: I suppose you did not intend to offend "general members" (like me) by making us sound like we are all backward folk who abhor modern conveniences, but that's how your comment comes across. Even so, one wonders whether it's more important for the "general members" of the LDS Church to be up-to-date on the very latest insights offered by biblical scholarship; or if it's actually more important that as a group we are familiar with the Bible at all. Against your criticism, it's difficult to argue with the fact that as a group, we actually do seem to know more about the Bible than others do: see here. Many Mormon scholars know much more about this subject than a regular guy like myself and have made similar comments. It's just a reality, and its a frustrating one for members who've learned so much valuable information from biblical scholarship, but the general membership is stuck in the past (The brethren are mostly to blame for not introducing the material to church members through conference and CES curriculum). If you want a more friendly critique by some mainstream apologists for the church, try listening to this podcast that Laura Hales and team put together. http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2016/09/19/episode-1-historical-jesus/ I've seen that Pew survey and found it interesting for sure. General Mormons aren't dumb, I never said that, and they take scripture study seriously. They are insular though.
Okrahomer Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 29 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, that's true, although it's not really saying much. We read the Bible where many denominations that have only the Bible do not. But that doesn't mean we're up to date on the best Biblical scholarship. Yes, I agree with both you about this: it's probably correct to say that as a group ("general members") are probably not "up to date on the best Biblical scholarship." And this may mean that sometimes some of us miss some important insights because of it; however, I'm unconvinced that the latest Biblical scholarship offers me any insights more important than those I receive when I'm prayerfully reading my KJV and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Gray Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Yes, I agree with both you about this: it's probably correct to say that as a group ("general members") are probably not "up to date on the best Biblical scholarship." And this may mean that sometimes some of us miss some important insights because of it; however, I'm unconvinced that the latest Biblical scholarship offers me any insights more important than those I receive when I'm prayerfully reading my KJV and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I've had some of my most vital spiritual insights after engaging with scholarship (in my own limited way - I am not a scholar), but of course YMMV.
Gray Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Many Mormon scholars know much more about this subject than a regular guy like myself and have made similar comments. It's just a reality, and its a frustrating one for members who've learned so much valuable information from biblical scholarship, but the general membership is stuck in the past (The brethren are mostly to blame for not introducing the material to church members through conference and CES curriculum). If you want a more friendly critique by some mainstream apologists for the church, try listening to this podcast that Laura Hales and team put together. http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2016/09/19/episode-1-historical-jesus/ I've seen that Pew survey and found it interesting for sure. General Mormons aren't dumb, I never said that, and they take scripture study seriously. They are insular though. To be fair, I don't think other denominations do much better. Many professional clergy are up to date on scholarship (I'm not sure if our top leaders are), but none of it seems to filter down to the congregations. For the most part, anyway.
maklelan Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 3 hours ago, snowflake said: The 8th article of faith states: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. My question this morning is: Has the Bible been translated correctly? And if not, what is the most correctly translated one that I should use for study? 1) Nope. 2) Too many dynamics to be able to identify "the most correctly translated" Bible. Which source texts the translation uses is one huge one, and how they interpret ambiguous or unclear passages is another. I would say the NRSV is probably the best in terms of source texts and literalness, while not being unreadable, like the KJV. The best LDS edition of the Bible is the Portuguese translation (and not just because I supervised it). 4
Popular Post maklelan Posted October 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Yes, I agree with both you about this: it's probably correct to say that as a group ("general members") are probably not "up to date on the best Biblical scholarship." And this may mean that sometimes some of us miss some important insights because of it; however, I'm unconvinced that the latest Biblical scholarship offers me any insights more important than those I receive when I'm prayerfully reading my KJV and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That depends on what kind of "insights" you're talking about. If you're just meditating on decisions in your life and ways to construct and reconstruct gospel doctrines in your head, the scriptures are really just a non-critical supplement. If you're actually trying to understand what the authors of the scriptures are saying, why they're saying it, and what they want you to get out of it, then the scholarship makes all the difference in the world. For instance, without biblical scholarship, you would have no idea that Job 19:26 actually has nothing to do with resurrection, since the KJV is a mistranslation and the text actually says, "without my flesh I will see God." Without biblical scholarship, you would have no idea that there was never a "woman taken in adultery," and that the text was actually added to the New Testament many centuries after Christ died, first in Luke and only later in John. It goes on and on and on. 5
Popular Post maklelan Posted October 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Rain said: This doesn't answer your question. I had a ward member who worked in the scripture department. He was our gospel doctrine teacher. He said that this had been discussed with some apostles and that they were aware of more correct versions, but decided against changing over. He never really said why they didn't change. I never got around to asking him why, though if I remember right copyright might have been one of the reasons. I have thought about it. It would be a huge expense to change things out. Perhaps they also felt the cost didn't justify the change at the time. There is no "scripture department," but I am the current Bible specialist in the scripture translation section of the Publishing Services Department. The KJV won't go away anytime soon because the language it uses is fundamental to the language of the rest of our scriptures and to the terminology our culture has used since the founding of the Church. The language of all the other scriptures would have to be updated, and many gospel terms would be changed. That's not a leap the Church will make any time soon. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with it. We could revise and update the KJV pretty easily, which is precisely what we did with the Spanish and Portuguese, but to do so would throw a huge wrench in the whole thing. The Brethren just don't consider that worth it at this point. 5
mfbukowski Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, maklelan said: There is no "scripture department," but I am the current Bible specialist in the scripture translation section of the Publishing Services Department. The KJV won't go away anytime soon because the language it uses is fundamental to the language of the rest of our scriptures and to the terminology our culture has used since the founding of the Church. The language of all the other scriptures would have to be updated, and many gospel terms would be changed. That's not a leap the Church will make any time soon. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with it. We could revise and update the KJV pretty easily, which is precisely what we did with the Spanish and Portuguese, but to do so would throw a huge wrench in the whole thing. The Brethren just don't consider that worth it at this point. Thanks for dropping in mak! 3
Okrahomer Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Many Mormon scholars know much more about this subject than a regular guy like myself and have made similar comments. It's just a reality, and its a frustrating one for members who've learned so much valuable information from biblical scholarship, but the general membership is stuck in the past (The brethren are mostly to blame for not introducing the material to church members through conference and CES curriculum). If you want a more friendly critique by some mainstream apologists for the church, try listening to this podcast that Laura Hales and team put together. http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2016/09/19/episode-1-historical-jesus/ I've seen that Pew survey and found it interesting for sure. General Mormons aren't dumb, I never said that, and they take scripture study seriously. They are insular though. I have no disagreement with the idea of increasing our understanding of scripture. Biblical scholarship is fine and useful--as far as it goes. But what I think is wrong, is for any of us to sit in judgement of the "regular" folk of the Church and think down upon them. My experience with the scriptures and with the Holy Ghost is not inferior to anyone's experience. When I allow Him to teach me, my learning is tailor-made by God; and I will not trade my spirit-filled insight with anything academia has to offer. 2
Okrahomer Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: I've had some of my most vital spiritual insights after engaging with scholarship (in my own limited way - I am not a scholar), but of course YMMV. No doubt. I share that experience with you then. Even so, I do not count Biblical Scholars among the prophets, nor do I believe their scholarship is scripture.
Recommended Posts