King James Version Bible Song
The Horrible Dangers of Using the NIV
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
He Said: The King James Version
The LDS Church is into standardization and chooses to use the King James Version of the Bible despite newer translations that might be closer translations. One of the main reasons is that Joseph Smith did a revision of this edition of the Bible and they have integrated his revelatory changes in to the footnotes and in a section in the back of their printed Bibles.
In Guide to the Scriptures: Joseph Smith Translation (JST) we read:
In the Mormonism Unveiled blog we learn:
In Guide to the Scriptures: Joseph Smith Translation (JST) we read:
They have a very lucrative practice selling their own editions to members of the LDS Church. In addition it would be hard to have other publishers include the JST inclusions. I think that is the main reason they stick to using the KJV since Joseph Smith's changes wouldn't lend themselves to any other edition.A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible in English, which the Prophet Joseph Smith began in June 1830. He was commanded by God to make the translation and regarded it as part of his calling as a prophet.Although Joseph completed most of the translation by July 1833, he continued until his death in 1844 to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for publication. Though he published some parts of the translation during his lifetime, it is possible that he would have made additional changes had he lived to publish the entire work. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints published the first edition of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation in 1867. They have published several editions since that time.
In the Mormonism Unveiled blog we learn:
The LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible is identical to the normal King James Version, except that it has cross-references to other LDS standard works. Some excerpts from the JST are included in the newest LDS edition of the King James Version. Expert LDS blogger Jeff Lindsay also presents Q & A about LDS usage of scriptures HERE.Jeff Lindsay says Hugh Nibley throws a little bit of light on the subject of why we stick with the KJV:
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the oldest manuscript we had of the books of Moses (the first five books) was from the ninth century A.D., the Ben Asher Codex. There are eight thousand different old manuscripts of the New Testament, no two alike. So there is a lot of collating, comparing, and arguing about which passages are which and what order they come in. Then when you have translation, there is no agreement about that. Year after year there are new revised translations coming forth. Well, if the last translation is reliable, why the new revised, improved Cambridge, or Anchor, or whatever it is, edition of the Bible? It's processing all the time. The Bible is a very human document, of course it is. So is the Book of Mormon. It covers thousands of years. It has many authors; it was edited, etc. But it was handed to us in a single passage. Bang, just like that, the whole thing - all edited, all in order, all translated. We don't have to argue about any of that stuff. If it is true, it comes to us whole, and there is nothing to slow us down on it - nothing to hold us up until we have decided what this passage means, or what that is. It was translated directly by the gift and power of God. There is no need to argue about it.I guess it doesn't really matter which edition you use if they are all riddled with errors and differ in what they consider canonical writings.
She Said: The King James Version
I'm a waffler when it comes to the official use by the Church of the King James Version of the Bible. I think there are two main considerations one must take into account when discussing which translation of the Bible to use: One is its language and style, and the other is doctrinal accuracy.
Language and Style:
I personally love the King James Version, I love its elegance, and I am comfortable speaking and reading the pre-Jacobean form of English it employs. But I realize that I may be different than the general Bible reader since I was weaned on the KJV. For almost half a century I have been listening to its cadences and idiosyncrasies. I am familiar with the use of "thee"s and "thou"s and Shakespearean-era conventions. Unfortunately, the language of the King James Version keeps many modern readers from understanding what it is saying, which is unfortunate. I particularly recall teaching the 23rd Psalm to a group of 9-year-olds in Primary. I didn't even realize that the phrase "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" would sound to them as if the author did not want the Lord as his shepherd. Some modern versions translate the phrase as follows:
None of these sounds as beautiful to my ear as the King James Version, and I find this to be true in numerous passages, especially the poetic ones. But to my 9-year-old students, and indeed, many others, any of these would be more understandable. Should more of an emphasis be placed on trying to educate its readers into an appreciation of scriptural-sounding language, or in providing the Word of God to readers wherever they are? I'm not sure.
I also think it is interesting to consider that different parts of the Bible likely were written in different types of language originally. Isaiah was written in a high, intellectual, poetic form, while much of the New Testament was in the common vernacular.
Doctrinal Accuracy:
Every translator of the scriptures brings his own unique bias to the translation, no matter how hard he or she tries to be impartial. (And many are not trying to be impartial.) One must keep this in mind when deciding upon a version of the scriptures to use. Bible scholar Fred P. Miller explains why he thinks the KJV is superior in this regard:
King James scholars are recognized by conservative leaning churches to have had a better understanding of the total Biblical context than the more modern translators. Thus churches such as the LDS trust the doctrinal positions available in the KJV more than the others.
For the most part I, too, trust the doctrinal understanding of the King James translators. I do think it is useful for Bible study to compare some of the other versions, especially when you hit a passage where the language is particularly unclear. For example, here's a verse in Isaiah that I puzzled over for quite some time:
For those who do not have the language skills to go back to the original Hebrew, it is helpful to take a look at how some of the other versions have translated the same verse. Here is one that makes the wording a little more clear:
I would compare this with a version that attempts to translate each Hebrew word very literally, such as the following, to see if I could agree with the translators' doctrinal implications:
Thus the different translations can be extremely helpful for deeper doctrinal study as well as for those students who do not have the background to understand the English of the King James Bible. I would not recommend a change in the LDS practice of using the KJV in their classes, sermons, and regular study. I think it stretches the student to learn and ponder the archaic language in a way that is conducive to Biblical study. But I would urge a more relaxed position with regard to the use of other translations. With the easy availability of many places online to compare the different versions (see below), there is no reason not to make use of them.
Bible Gateway
Blue Letter Bible
Language and Style:
I personally love the King James Version, I love its elegance, and I am comfortable speaking and reading the pre-Jacobean form of English it employs. But I realize that I may be different than the general Bible reader since I was weaned on the KJV. For almost half a century I have been listening to its cadences and idiosyncrasies. I am familiar with the use of "thee"s and "thou"s and Shakespearean-era conventions. Unfortunately, the language of the King James Version keeps many modern readers from understanding what it is saying, which is unfortunate. I particularly recall teaching the 23rd Psalm to a group of 9-year-olds in Primary. I didn't even realize that the phrase "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want" would sound to them as if the author did not want the Lord as his shepherd. Some modern versions translate the phrase as follows:
- The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not lack, (Amplified Bible)
- You, LORD, are my shepherd. I will never be in need. (Contemporary English Version)
- The Lord is my shepherd; I have everything I need. (Good News Translation)
- Jehovah [is] my shepherd, I do not lack, (Young's Literal Translation)
- The Lord is my shepherd. He gives me everything I need. (New International Reader's Version)
- The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. (New International Version--UK)
- God, my shepherd! I don't need a thing. (The Message)
None of these sounds as beautiful to my ear as the King James Version, and I find this to be true in numerous passages, especially the poetic ones. But to my 9-year-old students, and indeed, many others, any of these would be more understandable. Should more of an emphasis be placed on trying to educate its readers into an appreciation of scriptural-sounding language, or in providing the Word of God to readers wherever they are? I'm not sure.
I also think it is interesting to consider that different parts of the Bible likely were written in different types of language originally. Isaiah was written in a high, intellectual, poetic form, while much of the New Testament was in the common vernacular.
Doctrinal Accuracy:
Every translator of the scriptures brings his own unique bias to the translation, no matter how hard he or she tries to be impartial. (And many are not trying to be impartial.) One must keep this in mind when deciding upon a version of the scriptures to use. Bible scholar Fred P. Miller explains why he thinks the KJV is superior in this regard:
...there are good reasons for retaining the King James Version as a base instead of the translations from texts that more modern translators have used. The more modern translators are gifted linguists and their forte is in nuances of language. The earlier KJV translators and those on whom they based their revision (Tyndale and Coverdale) were careful students of the Word of God. This is of particular importance since understanding much of Hebrew syntax is dependent on contextual ideas that are a part of a continuing flow of thought.
King James scholars are recognized by conservative leaning churches to have had a better understanding of the total Biblical context than the more modern translators. Thus churches such as the LDS trust the doctrinal positions available in the KJV more than the others.
For the most part I, too, trust the doctrinal understanding of the King James translators. I do think it is useful for Bible study to compare some of the other versions, especially when you hit a passage where the language is particularly unclear. For example, here's a verse in Isaiah that I puzzled over for quite some time:
But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof. (Isaiah 6:13, KJV)
For those who do not have the language skills to go back to the original Hebrew, it is helpful to take a look at how some of the other versions have translated the same verse. Here is one that makes the wording a little more clear:
Even if only a tenth--a remnant--survive, it will be invaded again and burned. Israel will remain a stump, like a tree that is cut down, but the stump will be a holy seed that will grow again. (New Living Translation)
I would compare this with a version that attempts to translate each Hebrew word very literally, such as the following, to see if I could agree with the translators' doctrinal implications:
And yet in it a tenth, and it hath turned, And hath been for a burning, As a teil-tree, and as an oak, that in falling, Have substance in them, The holy seed [is] its substance! (Young's Literal Translation)
Thus the different translations can be extremely helpful for deeper doctrinal study as well as for those students who do not have the background to understand the English of the King James Bible. I would not recommend a change in the LDS practice of using the KJV in their classes, sermons, and regular study. I think it stretches the student to learn and ponder the archaic language in a way that is conducive to Biblical study. But I would urge a more relaxed position with regard to the use of other translations. With the easy availability of many places online to compare the different versions (see below), there is no reason not to make use of them.
Bible Gateway
Blue Letter Bible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
