use of the Kings James Version

[soulfire]

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

[skippy740]

soulfire,

I'm not much of a scripture historian, but I'll answer your 3rd question: Joseph Smith did begin a translation of the Bible and we can read excerpts of this in the LDS version of the KJV bible footnotes.

I do know that the church uses various other languages of the Bible and accepts them as accurate translations. Santa Biblia (spanish bible) isn't the KJV, but it is the official bible for LDS. The LDS church recently came out with a fully indexed & footnoted version of this bible just a few years ago.

While some of the other versions are easier to read (using plain modern english), I personally find them to lack a certain reverence. I suppose it's just my upbringing to use "thee, thy, thou" in scriptural and prayer language.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by soulfire

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

My question would be according to who's interpretation?

Scholars even disagree about what exactly happened and what the words in the original languages meant at the time they were written.

Originally Posted by soulfire

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

It's not that the Church doesn't "like" any other translation, it's that we have been given a study guide to go along with the KJV so that we can understand it better. We were not given one for any other verstion.

Originally Posted by soulfire

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

As I was saying, Joseph Smith did make a more accurate translation of the Bible, which we use as a study guide.

There are a few reasons why we don't use it as the official Bible of the Church. Not the least of these reasons is that we are a missionary Church. We send tens of thousands of missionaries out into the world to teach about Jesus Christ. For someone who has never heard of Joseph Smith or the restoration, it is best that they first learn that he was a true prophet called of God just like Old and New Testament prophets before they learn we use his translation of the Bible.

Once a person sees the Book of Mormon as being translated by the gift and power of God, they are in a much better position to see that his translation of the Bible was done by his prophetic gifts as well.

Very good questions.

[applepansy]

Skippy, I agree with you. Plain English translations seem less sacred to me. I think we lose some of the nuisance in the plain english versions.

Originally Posted by soulfire

my first question is why do lds use the kings james version over any other. over time, havent we been able to create more accurate translations than king james's translators were able to? (also, using plain modern english)

The reason we use the KJV is because our prophets have declared it to be the most accurate translation.

2nd, if the church doesnt like any other translation more than the KJV, doesnt the church think they can improve upon it by making their own?

See Skippy's response.

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

You might want to ask God why He hasn't instructed the Prophet to create another version. I'm sure as mere mortals we'll only be guessing at any reasons Heavenly Father might have.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by soulfire

3rd, if the church always has a modern day prophet, why hasnt god ever equipped any of his prophets with the means to create a flawless version of all biblical text word for word? wouldnt that be worth doing?

If God loved people, wouldn't he eliminate all warfare?

Since God made humans warm-blooded, why did he invent snow?

If God cared about mankind, why does he allow country music.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by skippy740

soulfire,

I'm not much of a scripture historian, but I'll answer your 3rd question: Joseph Smith did begin a translation of the Bible and we can read excerpts of this in the LDS version of the KJV bible footnotes.

It wasn't a translation. He didn't translate anything.

[Martain]

Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary?

D&C 45:60-61
And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known;
Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.

If it isn't a translation... why do they call it JST or the Joseph Smith Translation?

As to the original question I'd like to share the introduction information found inside these books here and here which are also sold and used by the LDS Institute.

INTRODUCTION

In Doctrine and Covenants 45:60-61, 73:304, and 76:15, Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to "translate" the Bible. While the meaning of "translate" might initially seem obvious, there are actually several interesting and viable possibilities. Dr. Robert L. Millet, Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, has described three perspectives for how one can view Joseph Smith's "translation" (1985, p. 43). He proposes that Joseph's "translation" could be:

1) Inspired prophetic commentary; and/or,
2) Harmonization of the themes, accounts and theologies in the Biblical text with Joseph's progressing understanding of truth, focused by his continual revelations from the Lord; and/or,
3) Restoration by Joseph oof text originally included in the Bible, but lost or changed through centuries of textual transmission and cross-language rendering.

Each of these three possibilities should be especially interesting to Latter0day Saints. Whether a given change represents one or more of these three possibilities, "new" ways of reading the text, and therefrom new insights, are possible.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

After purchasing an 1828 edition of the King James Version (KJV) Bible from E. B. Grandin, the Prophet Joseph Smith spent 16 years, virtually to the time of his martyrdom, following the Lord's commandment to translate. This enormous effort produced chances in over 4,000 verses of the text of the KJV Bible. The marked Bible and accompanying manuscripts produced by Joseph i nthe translation process were, following his death, left in the private possession of Emma Hale Smith. Later in her life, she donated the manuscript to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). The manuscript has remained in their possession to the present time.

For a substantial period of time, access for LDS scholars to the Bible and manuscripts of Joseph's work was very limited. This limited access created some feelings of caution on the part of the LDS students of the scriptures concerning the accuracy of the JST texts being published by the RLDS church (such as the Inspired Bible). However, since Robert J. Matthews, former Dean of BYU Religious Education, was given full access to the Bible and manuscripts in the 1960's, no serious doubt has survived in the LDS scholarly community that the Joseph Smith Translation, as represented in RLDS publications, is fundamentally reliable and complete when compared to Joseph's original work.

In the LDS Bible we have a numerous amount of Joseph Smith Translations available either in their own section or as footnotes. Yet there is a large amount of JST that was not added therein. The bulk of the JST we have in the LDS Bible arises from documents that came to the west with the saints. I'm not sure how much if any of the JST that remained with Emma and now copyrighted by the RLDS Chuch (whose current/new name I cannot recall) has made it into the current LDS Bible but I am under the understanding that most of it could not be added due to copyright laws. One of the reasons why I value the two books I linked to above =).

As for why the the Lord hasn't called another Prophet in the LDS Church to finish the translation? I do know. I have heard an opinion as to one reason why though. We have enough difficulty seeking to convince the world of a new book of revelation, the Book of Mormon, without also seeking to tell them that we have a new Bible to replace theirs.

Another thought would be this. Right now we have the KJV and the work Joseph Smith completed to review. If this were substantially different as a whole from what the Bible was meant to read, perhaps the Lord would have the rest revealed. Another would be that perhaps it has not been revealed for the same reasons that other works of scripture remain sealed. This being primarily unbelief and unrighteousness. Why should the Lord see fit to reveal the rest when as a whole we're still working on accepting the Book of Mormon and living according to it's teachings?

As for one reason why the KJV version was used, my understanding is that it was the only version at that time which had official world wide acceptance.

[volgadon]

Since God made humans warm-blooded, why did he invent snow?

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words.

[volgadon]

Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary?

Which isn't necessarily the original form, but rather an inspired commentary on how we are to view scripture and apply it. It fits an old Jewish practice of targum, which is a reinterpretation of scripture acheived by translating it.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Snow

If God cared about mankind, why does he allow country music.

Was it Marie or Donny who said s/he was "a little bit country..."

Ah...but I digress.