8th article of faith

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/25/2016 at 8:39 AM, bluebell said:

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.

Could you elaborate on, and perhaps document, "the general consensus ... that there are other Bible translations that are more doctrinally sound than the KJV"?

By that, do you mean the consensus among Bible scholars in general or among scholarly Latter-day Saints?

Thanks in advance.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

FYI,

Here is the First Presidency statement regarding use of the King James Version. It was given in 1992, during the administration of President Ezra Taft Benson. I'm open to any subsequent First Presidency statement that supersedes it, but I'm not aware of any at the moment.

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible

 

The First Presidency has released the following letter regarding the King James Version of the Bible.

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible 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

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could you elaborate on, and perhaps document, "the general consensus ... that there are other Bible translations that are more doctrinally sound than the KJV"?

By that, do you mean the consensus among Bible scholars in general or among scholarly Latter-day Saints?

Thanks in advance.

Bible scholars. From everything I've read all scholars seem to agree that the KJV is not as accurate a translation as other bible translations. 

[GrainofSalt]

On 2016-10-26 at 0:24 PM, ksfisher said:

I believe the Community of Christ holds the copyright on this.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The JST is available to read using free Xiphos Bible software, so maybe the copyright has expired?  As for the KJV,  I agree with Malcolm Muggeridge who preferred "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" over "Thou shalt not put God to the test". Maybe the latter is more accurate, but it's not very elegant.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Bible scholars. From everything I've read all scholars seem to agree that the KJV is not as accurate a translation as other bible translations. 

As the First Presidency statement I quoted above points out, it is difficult to measure the accuracy of any Bible translation as the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible are not extant. 

And as the statement further points out, the best way to measure the accuracy of any Biblical passage is to compare it with the Book of Mormon and with latter-day revelations. If we accept that as true, then we must accept the corrolary that most Bible scholars in the world are hindered in assessing translation accuracy by the fact that they accept neither the Book of Mormon nor latter-day revelation. 

There may well be value in reading and occasionally quoting from or citing Bible translations other than the KJV. Indeed, President Uchtdorf did that very thing at the most recent general conference. But I remain unpersuaded for the moment that there are Bible versions generally more accurate than the KJV. I am open to persuasive argument on this point; I just haven't seen it yet. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[maklelan]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As the First Presidency statement I quoted above points out, it is difficult to measure the accuracy of any Bible translation as the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible are not extant. 

This is really a bit of a red herring. While we don't have the autographs, we do have a far better understanding of what the Bible looked like in antiquity than they did when the KJV was translated, not only because we've discovered literally thousands of more ancient manuscripts than they had available to them during that time, but also because we've developed far better text-critical methodologies and understand far better the ideologies that influenced the editing and redacting of the Bible. We can point to numerous, numerous places in the biblical text where we have conclusive evidence the KJV is a later reading and we know what the earlier reading was. So right there the KJV is behind. 

 

Quote

And as the statement further points out, the best way to measure the accuracy of any Biblical passage is to compare it with the Book of Mormon and with latter-day revelations.

But the KJV differs in numerous places from the quotations in the Book of Mormon and other restoration scripture. Here's an interesting tidbit from the world of scripture translation: the Spanish and Portuguese Bibles the Church publishes have around 40% fewer footnotes than our KJV. Originally, people thought we were shortchanging the membership by not giving them as many resources in the footnotes, but the reality was that the KJV has tons and tons of explanatory footnotes meant to clarify unclear and plain old incorrect translations in the text that were no longer needed because the translations into Spanish and Portuguese already had the clarified version in the text itself. Also, the KJV has passages in it that teach false doctrine if we accept the simple reading. For instance, Isaiah 45:7 has YHWH say, "I make peace and I create evil." This is a perfectly literal translation of the Hebrew, but I have seen non-English speaking Church leaders decry this statement as false doctrine when it's been literally translated into their languages. We've learned to either ignore those passages or to massage our exegesis to accommodate them. Virtually anything can be reinterpreted to mean what we want it to mean if we're creative enough, but that's not a feature of the translation, that's a feature of our hermeneutic.

To examine a translation executed in 1611 from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Early Modern English by comparing it to our culturally mediated 21st-century interpretations of restoration scripture is not to measure the quality of the translation, but the ability of the translation to be accommodated to our worldview. In reality, there are many translations of the Bible out there that can do that, and even some that can do it better.

 

Quote

If we accept that as true, then we must accept the corrolary that most Bible scholars in the world are hindered in assessing translation accuracy by the fact that they accept neither the Book of Mormon nor latter-day revelation. 

There may well be value in reading and occasionally quoting from or citing Bible translations other than the KJV. Indeed, President Uchtdorf did that very thing at the most recent general conference. But I remain unpersuaded for the moment that there are Bible versions generally more accurate than the KJV. I am open to persuasive argument on this point; I just haven't seen it yet. 

Another problem is with the language of the KJV and just how outdated and wooden it is. Here's 2 Corinthians 2:5:

Quote

But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.

You can probably extract some approximation of some meaning out of this text, but I guarantee you that you cannot understand what the Greek meant without consulting a better translation. There are many, many places where this is the case in the KJV.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, maklelan said:

Another problem is with the language of the KJV and just how outdated and wooden it is. Here's 2 Corinthians 2:5:

You can probably extract some approximation of some meaning out of this text, but I guarantee you that you cannot understand what the Greek meant without consulting a better translation. There are many, many places where this is the case in the KJV.

My family and I have been commenting on how hard it can be to understand Paul in the KJV as we are slogging through the epistles right now.

What translation do you like? I am tempted to pull out my old Oxford Annotated from wherever my wife has put it...

[maklelan]

On 10/29/2016 at 5:36 PM, RevTestament said:

My family and I have been commenting on how hard it can be to understand Paul in the KJV as we are slogging through the epistles right now.

What translation do you like? I am tempted to pull out my old Oxford Annotated from wherever my wife has put it...

I prefer the NRSV, which is what the Oxford Annotated Bible is, but there are others that are written in more accessible language.

[PeterPear]

On 10/28/2016 at 10:31 AM, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. 

I though you stated the Bible didn't help people know the form of baptism. LOL!

Did it also not help the boy-prophet know how to ask God in prayer?

[Teancum]

On 10/25/2016 at 10:28 AM, 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"?

For LDS when the Bible can be used to confirm what the Church teaches it is correct. If it disputes what the LDS Church teaches is is not correct.  When it leaves out what the LDS Church teaches it is not correct.  Pretty nice methodology isn't it?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I though you stated the Bible didn't help people know the form of baptism. LOL!

Did it also not help the boy-prophet know how to ask God in prayer?

What I stated is that, if the Bible is so clear on both the manner of baptism and whether or not it's necessary, it's odd that so many Bible-only churches completely disagree with each other on whether it's needed as part of a saving relationship with Christ or how it needs to be done.