this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

What's the problem with misquoting? When Jesus quoted the scriptures, he quoted the Septuagint, which had incorrect translations from the Hebrew Bible.

Likewise, it's not a big deal when the BofM cites biblical verses in the KJV. Just like the Jews in Jesus' time who used the Septuagint, the KJV is what was used in Joseph Smith's time. That doesn't mean there is no value today in studying other translations based on better source materials than were available to the KJV translators. And as far as the KJV being more doctrinally accurate, I could probably find dozens of verses in the NRSV that fit better with LDS doctrine than their counterpart from the KJV. The baptism for the dead scripture in 1 Cor. 15 being one of them.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

What's the problem with misquoting? When Jesus quoted the scriptures, he quoted the Septuagint, which had incorrect translations from the Hebrew Bible.

Sorry, I meant to say skeptical of the KJV, not the JST.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm, no, I think there's just an aversion to using man-made processes to interpret the divine. Joseph Smith spent time studying other languages and versions to understand the Bible, but when he created the JST it was by revelation and revelation alone.

You seem to be saying "We don't need to study the hundreds (thousands) of ancient Greek manuscripts that have been discovered that pre-date those used by the translators of the KJV. If we need to learn anything about the bible, we will just rely on revelation." That's just nuts. And I don't believe that is how God operates. He expects us to use our heads.

Don't you find any irony in using this argument to defend a document (KJV) that was translated entirely by non-LDS scholars hundreds of years ago? Translators who were relying on ancient texts and were doing their duty in an attempt to improve on previous translations? Or do you believe that the KJV translators alone were inspired but all of the others were not?

Tex, it is amazing what lengths you will go to in order to defend the status quo on EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by Tex

Quite simply, I think there are some sound logistical reasons. It's hard enough to get members to study their scriptures as it is. You really think outside of Cougarguard "intelligentsia" that the bulk of the church is going to acquire and study multiple versions?

Who says the bulk of the church has to do it? I am just saying that the church should be more anxious than anyone to study old Greek manuscripts in order to improve the translation. Rather than doggedly clinging to the such a relatively bad translation.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by BlueK

would you be bothered if in the new Bible Dictionary this statement about the KJV were taken out?

Not at all.

Why? Your question seems to come out of nowhere.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Likewise, it's not a big deal when the BofM cites biblical verses in the KJV. Just like the Jews in Jesus' time who used the Septuagint, the KJV is what was used in Joseph Smith's time. That doesn't mean there is no value today in studying other translations based on better source materials than were available to the KJV translators. And as far as the KJV being more doctrinally accurate, I could probably find dozens of verses in the NRSV that fit better with LDS doctrine than their counterpart from the KJV. The baptism for the dead scripture in 1 Cor. 15 being one of them.

john 4:24 NIV has "God is spirit" instead of "God is a spirit"

[SeattleUte]

Tex is like some kind of a cyborg. I am starting to appreciate the genius of his relentless, picture perfect, unerring, undeviating defense of LDS status quo. He's Boyd K. Packer's cyborg assassin. He's probably all over the Internet and off and on in your Gospel Doctrine classes. Lebowski, Waters, the rest of you progressives, give up. Either bow to Tex or get the hell out. It's like trying to play chess with a computer. He'll finally ground you to dust, after you thought you had him over and over again.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

john 4:24 NIV has "God is spirit" instead of "God is a spirit"

Screw the NIV. I've got "Kata Iohannen" right in front of me and verse 24 says "pneuma ho theos."

Talk of which English translation is best is a tallest midget contest. Maybe we stick with the KJV because, ultimately, every English translation sucks and at least the KJV is poetic.

[SeattleUte]

When readers who love the Iliad or the Aeneid compare translations, fidelity to the ancient Greek or Latin is only of passing interest. What matters is the beauty of the poetry. I'm a hold out for the KJV because I think it's the most moving of all the versions, at least for me. Certainly, I think, it's the superior work of art which is what matters to me. As Harold Bloom has noted, there is not much resemblance between Christianity as we know it and the original Hebrew monotheism, and from my perspective fealty to the original text is not the first priority. There is nothing wrong with Christianity developing a Bible that is Christianity's own artifact. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor to have versions that purport to be faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek. But these are not likely to be the most beautiful or moving or enduring. English has its own rythms. Needless to say, versions of the Iliad that just literally trot out what is said in the Greek are not the most beloved. They are academic exercises. How else is verse achieved except by a poet employing his craft as he "translates"?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Likewise, it's not a big deal when the BofM cites biblical verses in the KJV. Just like the Jews in Jesus' time who used the Septuagint, the KJV is what was used in Joseph Smith's time. That doesn't mean there is no value today in studying other translations based on better source materials than were available to the KJV translators. And as far as the KJV being more doctrinally accurate, I could probably find dozens of verses in the NRSV that fit better with LDS doctrine than their counterpart from the KJV. The baptism for the dead scripture in 1 Cor. 15 being one of them.

Perhaps not a big deal, but Jesus did not quote (exclusively, at least) from Septuagint writings. Instead, the writers of the gospels who recorded Jesus' words quoted from them. Jesus seems to have access - in the synagogues, at least - to scrolls in Hebrew (e.g. Luke 4.16-17).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

When readers who love the Iliad or the Aeneid compare translations, fidelity to the ancient Greek or Latin is only of passing interest. What matters is the beauty of the poetry. I'm a hold out for the KJV because I think it's the most moving of all the versions, at least for me. Certainly, I think, it's the superior work of art which is what matters to me. As Harold Bloom has noted, there is not much resemblance between Christianity as we know it and the original Hebrew monotheism, and from my perspective fealty to the original text is not the first priority. There is nothing wrong with Christianity developing a Bible that is Christianity's own artifact. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor to have versions that purport to be faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek. But these are not likely to be the most beautiful or moving or enduring. English has its own rythms. Needless to say, versions of the Iliad that just literally trot out what is said in the Greek are not the most beloved. They are academic exercises. How else is verse achieved except by a poet employing his craft as he "translates"?

I've never heard Bloom wax poetic about anything in the New Testament.

And it is the New Testament, not the Old Testament, translations that are controversial, and more important in terms of doctrine.