LDS and KJV-onlyism

[curtishouse]

As I learn more about the church, it seems that the only Bible that the LDS church relies on is the KJV Bible and believes that all others are corrupted...If I'm wrong on any of this, please tell me.

Is there any proof of this? Also if you look in the KJV, there are certain verses that are inaccurate such as ones that use the word "unicorn" but, in later translations, changed the word to a more accurate meaning of oxen or something of that variant. Some verses on the usage of "unicorn" are Psalm 92:10, Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-10, etc.

Any help on the church's view of KJV-onlyism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry for this outsider view--but I've been here over four years, and think I know the answer. The church uses the KJV because it's the one the church publishes. From what I am told here, there is no official opposition to other translations, and several posters here use them in their studies.

[BenRaines]

That sounds pretty good PC. I have a Reina Valera that I have used for over 30 years. I it is a spanish copy of the Bible.

Perhaps it is easier to say, my opinion only, that we use the KJV since it is the one that has least been modified to please the politically correct crowd.

I know that there are many scholars who study all forms even going back to what they can find in Hebrew or Greek to try to get an original understanding what was meant by what has been written.

Being bi-lingual I can easily see how things can be interpreted differently from one language to another. Imagine several language translations.

Also to try to understand just by reading what God wished to communicate to his children falls short. It all requires confirmation of the Holy Ghost to know what God intended to say.

My opinion.

Ben Raines

[Wingnut]

Both PC and Ben made good points. I just wanted to add in that we don't think that other versions are "corrupt." In fact, if you use that world in a technological sense (e.g., "a corrupted file") then all versions are corrupt -- having been changed from the original. That's bound to happen with translation on top of translation. The KJV is -- I believe -- widely accepted as the most correct translation, though perhaps not the easiest to understand, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with other versions.

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

I personally use several resources:

Studylight: 29 online translations

Blueletter Bible: Great Greek/Hebrew resource.

Bible Gateway Another online version

LM

[tubaloth]

There really isn't much more to add to this.

We already believe there are miss-translations in the KJV of the bible. But being the one that is the more official Bible we use it.

So then why not use another version of the bible? That I feel leads to another question of who can translate the bible? Is this more scholarly or is a spiritual. I mean we can translate from one language to another, but that might miss the Doctrine or spiritual intent of the message.

So we stick with the KJV. Joseph Smith (I assume you know was a prophet of the LDS Church and the one that "translated" the book of mormon).

Joseph Smith went through the bible a number of times to correct some of these errors that had come in. Joseph Smiths translation was pretty completely spiritual. Joseph Smith never finished the translation before he died thus we use what he has, but use it as a guidance to understand the full meaning. Our Pearl of Great price has the first 6 chapters of Moses is really Joseph Smith's translation of the first chapters of Genesis.

So its with this added guidance that we use the KJV.

[curtishouse]

Originally Posted by tubaloth

There really isn't much more to add to this.

We already believe there are miss-translations in the KJV of the bible. But being the one that is the more official Bible we use it.

So then why not use another version of the bible? That I feel leads to another question of who can translate the bible? Is this more scholarly or is a spiritual. I mean we can translate from one language to another, but that might miss the Doctrine or spiritual intent of the message.

So we stick with the KJV. Joseph Smith (I assume you know was a prophet of the LDS Church and the one that "translated" the book of mormon).

Joseph Smith went through the bible a number of times to correct some of these errors that had come in. Joseph Smiths translation was pretty completely spiritual. Joseph Smith never finished the translation before he died thus we use what he has, but use it as a guidance to understand the full meaning. Our Pearl of Great price has the first 6 chapters of Moses is really Joseph Smith's translation of the first chapters of Genesis.

So its with this added guidance that we use the KJV.

Well I guess the question must be asked did King James have the proper authority to translate the Bible then? If not, how could you trust the KJV?

[prisonchaplain]

There is another factor. KJV is probably about the only English translation that is public domain...freeing the church to publish it with LDS notes, etc.

[bytebear]

Originally Posted by curtishouse

Well I guess the question must be asked did King James have the proper authority to translate the Bible then? If not, how could you trust the KJV?

Nobody had authority from God. That didn't come until the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith. But, there is an implication that God inspired King James to do the translation and that at least some of those who actually did the translation did it with inspiration from God. But no translation would be perfect unless completely directed by God through a prophet. That is why we need the Holy Ghost, to help us discern truth. Even if we had the original words from Peter or Paul, it would be no different than the words of Joseph Smith or Nephi. We still must determine what truth exists in those words for ourselves.