Something I thought about the other day, why is it that the LDS church uses the King James Version of the Bible? Isn't most of the reason why the other scriptures (BoM/PoGP/D&C) exist in the first place? Because they don't believe the Bible to be inerrant or properly translated?

Are they not aware that the KJV is probably the worst translated version of the Bible in publication today? That thing was revised countless times due to really big errors (gender confusion, the translation of Koine Greek vs. Classical Greek, even the definition of certain words was completely jacked up). Not to mention straight-up censorship due to the era of it's release.

I mean, if they are so worried about properly inspired and translated doctrine, why are they using the worst possible version, the one that has been tampered with the most?

Sometimes when I think about these things, my brain hurts and I feel so stupid for falling for their crap. I mean, this one is really obvious to me. Why?

(and a dead giveaway that it's a fraud)

Actually, yeah. I was aware of those things. But for whatever reason I never put two and two together.

It's just one of those things that I happily ignored as a Mormon. And no one ever brought it up to me that the use of the KJV was a contradiction to the existence of the added doctrine. So even though the information about the KJV was known to me, I just kind of blew past that thought somehow.

As for the use of KJV in modern Christianity, maybe that's a regional thing? Here in central Illinois everyone but Catholics and Mormons use NIV or NASB. If I see a KJV, I get nervous and start looking for obscenely large families to start popping out of the woodwork. : P

(If there are any Catholics on here, the big family jab is all in good fun. No offense meant)

From 1609 on for 400 years, the Douhey-Rheims translation was the Catholic Bible in English. Now they use either the New American Bible (NAB), or theNew Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE). Catholic Bibles differ from Protestants mainly that they contain Old Testament books that Protestants call the Apochrapha.

I agree that the KJV matches the work that JS produced. However I believe that the real reason they choose not to use any other Bible translation (such as NIV, which ranks as one of the most used Bible translations in the world) is because the KJV is hard to read. While I am sure some people sit down and read Elizabethan texts and treatises, your average Joe doesn't. You spend most of the time patting yourself on the back for getting your word understanding right than focusing on the messages contained in the Bible. Plus there's the fact that you don't "know" what has been "translated correctly." So it mostly ends up unused.

Because the KJV is the Bible version used by most Christians (at least in the US).

Also because Joseph Smith died before completing the Inspired Version.

That's what I was always told anyway.

Verdacht Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also because Joseph Smith died before completing
> the Inspired Version.
>

Huh? If he intended to convert the bible into plain English then why aren't the parts he did complete in plain English?

It was clearly done to make it sound scriptural. No one would have bought the story if it sounded like ordinary conversations of the time.

I don't know about all Protestant religions, but the ones I know about haven't used the KJV since at least the 1950s (of course the Morg still dresses like they are in the 50s, so maybe that's why).

As for JS not finishing his translation, it always begs the question why haven't any of the standing seers, prophets and revelators done it in the past 150+ years? The obvious answer is they can't, because they are frauds, so they won't even attempt it.

Because the BofM was written in the same Old English style as the KJV, thus making the BofM seem more authentic. However the KJV was translated into the vernacular of the era in which it was translated, why wasn't the BofM? The BofM simply mimics the Old English used in the KJV.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2010 08:48PM by dr5.

Every Protestant church I've been in uses the NIV. I think the KJV went out in the fifties--even in the sixties and seventies when I was growing up, my church used the Revised Standard.

This will become more of a problem for tscc as we continue to find more old greek manuscripts. mormon seminary students are already completely ignorant when it comes to known interpolations in the kjv. They continue to fall behind.

Also, large parts of the KJV are incorporated (plagiarized?) in the BoM, so throwing out the KJV would be at best confusing for Mormons, and at worst it would erode the credibility of the BoM.

Plus, JS used the KJV as the basis for his own "translation" of the Bible, often simply penciling the changes in his own KJV. If another version of the Bible were used, it would be very difficult to square its language with JS's changes.

I once asked a couple of missionaries why Mormons use the KJV. They said it was simply the most accurate translation. Though hardly any Bible scholars would agree, some non-Mormons also believe this "KJV Only" doctrine, which is generally based on the belief that the KJV text and/or the texts on which it is based are themselves divinely inspired. To each his or her own.

By the way, ExMorgbot, I'm Catholic, and though you didn't offend me I should point out that most of us mackerel-snappers use a modern translation such as the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible. Although I'm still fond of the language of the Douay-Rheims version, which a group of exiled English Catholics put together in France at about the same time the KJV was being written. It's sort of *our* KJV.

I think it's because the KJV was the commonly used version at the time JS created Mormonism. Many core beliefs of Mormonism rely on his interpretation of the KJ texts so that any variation of those, such as might be included in the NIV and others, offering clarification or slightly different translation might not support the interpretation they want. So they are stuck with it. An interesting read on the creation of the KJV is a book entitled God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson.

I have seen a bumper sticker that said "If it ain't King James it ain't Bible."

How about that? The Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) is all wrong?

I think the KJV is more popular with the wingnut element because the difficult language makes it easier to ferment weird crap. To the uneducated it also "sounds bibley"

"My name is legion." OK - that means that the bad guys have lots of names, not that the American Legion is Satan affiliated, as my neighbor believes.

Haha. ya, the kjv-only movement, as its called, is a joke.

If you compare the texts of the Book of Mormo and the KJV many similarities arise. The church has lots of excuses for this.

But if you take those same Bom verses and compare them to the newer text like a NSRV,or NIV the BoM verses suddenly don't make sense anymore.

The simple answer is because JS copied wholesale from his KJV.

While it is true that they both have similar styles, it is the word for word plagiarized content that really matters. And that is why the KJV is the only bible that the church will use.

High and mighty language sounds better in the old English.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. Originally I would think the church used the KJV only for the purpose of style and because of the JST.

However, I do think the church has much to gain these days from using the the King James Bible. It is much less scholarly and using better editions would not only make the Book of Mormon look weaker, but it would also hurt some of the doctrines of the church.

More modern bibles will show problems in biblical text that would have been added by scribes after the time of the original writers. These are usually enclosed in brackets and the reader is told that these verses did not originally appear in the text when it was written. One example would be the woman taken in adultery which was not in any of the original manuscripts of the gospel of John and did not appear until the 10th century a.d. - this shows that it was added by scribes long after it was written. Some of these verses are no big deal to the church. Other verses do matter. These would include Mark 16:9-20 which was not originally in Mark but is one of the only, if not the only, place in the bible that talks about how baptism is essential.

Another big example is Luke 22:43-44. This is the section that talks about Christ's suffering in the Gethlesemene. Only problem is scholars believe it wasn't originally in the gospel of Luke. This section would be marked in brackets in better versions of bibles, but NOT in the KJV.

Anyways I definitely think with the footnotes, the bible dictionary, secion heading, and all that few TBM pick up anything but the KJV. This may be helpful for the church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2010 08:44PM by evolution.

These are all really good points.

One other comes to mind. Remember J. Reuben Clark? In the 50s (I think) he wrote that book "Why the King James Version?" It basically is a rehash of some fundamentalist arguments IIRC and Clark didn't even know Greek or Hebrew. But he tried to defend the KJV for Mormons based upon fundamentalist arguments that have since largely been discredited.

Anyway, since a member of the first presidency went out on a limb to defend the KJV for Mormons, it gave it even more weight with the brethren.

Once someone of that stature weighed in it was only a matter of time before the church officially adopted the KJV. It was in 1993 that they issued a first presidency letter to that effect. I wonder if Benson was even coherent at that point in time so whoever was behind it (Hinckle? Monson? Packer?) is a mystery to me.

But for all the arguments raised above as well as J. Reuben Clark taking a stand it was inevitable that it would be adopted as the "official version" for TSCC.

Of course it totally contradicts the Articles of Faith (i.e. it is NOT the most correctly translated version) but when did anything ever make sense in TSCC?

Per church publicity, over half the members are outside the USA. There is no such thing as a KJV in German or Portugese or Spanish. In both Germany and Sweden, TSCC uses the authorized Lutheran version of the Bible. So over half of LDS members (if the numbers are to be trusted) don't study the Bible in English and therefore don't use a KJV anyway.