A Bible. a Bible, we have a KJV Bible

[Sleeping in EQ]

As I've mentioned in passing, I have real problems with the KJV. Textus Receptus, the manuscript translated by Erasmus that the KJV is almost exclusively based on (it was incomplete so Erasmus had to borrow a Latin manuscript from a friend for the last portion of Revelations, translate it into Greek and then into English), has lots of errors and corrupted passages in it. We know this because in recent centuries we've found a treasure trove of manuscripts, have been able to trace which ones decended from which, and can literally see when the problems in Textus Receptus crept in. The best translations today make extensive use of the earliest and most complete manuscripts, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, as well as important discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early and reliable sources. Even the recent Catholic bibles, long dependent on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, have gone with the clearly superior, but more recently discovered sources.

And then there's the Elizabethan English that children and new converts can really stumble over (and the further we get from the times of KJ, the more difficult this will become.)

And then there's the fact that, despite the sometimes elegant and highly-respectful language, none of the people in the NT or OT talked that way.

Oh yea, did I mention that the more accurate translations reflect more positively on LDS thinking in some crucial passages?

Don't get me wrong, the KJV has a rich heritage and was the right English bible for a long time (the other pervasive English Translation, the Geneva Bible, was eventually eclipsed by the KJV), but I think that if you're interested in accuracy and readability there are much better choices today.

I'd love to see LDS editions of the NRSV and ESV. For scholarly types, I'd add an LDS edition of the TEV for it's attention to dynamic equivalence in idiom.

So:

What bibles do you use?

If you are literate in a language other than English, do you have a bible from that language? If so, what is it? Do you like it?

Yesterday during Sacrament service the speaker mentioned a verse in Hebrews and I pulled out my NRSV. The nice young couple behind me was sufficiently suprised that they asked me about it in the foyer. I said something very close to what I wrote above, and no doubt bored them right out of there minds.

[MikeWaters]

we stick to the KJV because there is something comforting about hearing the scriptures in the same familiar way each time.

It would be interesting if someone, through unofficial means, produced a LDS version of one of these other translations.

Is that legal? are is everything copyrighted?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

we stick to the KJV because there is something comforting about hearing the scriptures in the same familiar way each time.

It would be interesting if someone, through unofficial means, produced a LDS version of one of these other translations.

Is that legal? are is everything copyrighted?

Modern English bibles are copyrighted, but permission for special editions (like an LDS footnoted and crossreferenced edition) is granted quite often. I suspect the owners of the copyrights would LOVE to do an LDS edition as it would mean some serious Benjamins.

[MikeWaters]

are the LDS footnotes copyrighted? I assume they are.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are the LDS footnotes copyrighted? I assume they are.

Yes.

[Archaea]

While in Germany, the German Bible underwent a major change. For a long time, Germany had two major bibles, the Vulgate edition and the Luther Bible.

Well, the Lutherans and the Catholics got together and retranslated it, using more recent sources, creating an ecumenical version, which the Church adopted. Brother Emil Luschin retranslated the LDS works using the new terminology. Many of the statists objected but I jumped right in.

The Spanish and French Bibles seem tied to the Vulgate with versions tied to the Luther Bible.

[danimal]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

As I've mentioned in passing, I have real problems with the KJV. Textus Receptus, the manuscript translated by Erasmus that the KJV is almost exclusively based on (it was incomplete so Erasmus had to borrow a Latin manuscript from a friend for the last portion of Revelations, translate it into Greek and then into English), has lots of errors and corrupted passages in it. We know this because in recent centuries we've found a treasure trove of manuscripts, have been able to trace which ones decended from which, and can literally see when the problems in Textus Receptus crept in. The best translations today make extensive use of the earliest and most complete manuscripts, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, as well as important discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early and reliable sources. Even the recent Catholic bibles, long dependent on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, have gone with the clearly superior, but more recently discovered sources.

And then there's the Elizabethan English that children and new converts can really stumble over (and the further we get from the times of KJ, the more difficult this will become.)

And then there's the fact that, despite the sometimes elegant and highly-respectful language, none of the people in the NT or OT talked that way.

Oh yea, did I mention that the more accurate translations reflect more positively on LDS thinking in some crucial passages?

Don't get me wrong, the KJV has a rich heritage and was the right English bible for a long time (the other pervasive English Translation, the Geneva Bible, was eventually eclipsed by the KJV), but I think that if you're interested in accuracy and readability there are much better choices today.

I'd love to see LDS editions of the NRSV and ESV. For scholarly types, I'd add an LDS edition of the TEV for it's attention to dynamic equivalence in idiom.

So:

What bibles do you use?

If you are literate in a language other than English, do you have a bible from that language? If so, what is it? Do you like it?

Yesterday during Sacrament service the speaker mentioned a verse in Hebrews and I pulled out my NRSV. The nice young couple behind me was sufficiently suprised that they asked me about it in the foyer. I said something very close to what I wrote above, and no doubt bored them right out of there minds.

I'm not fond of KJV and think we should supplement from other versions. However, KJV is essential to us because it is the version joseph smith was familiar with when he translated the book of mormon and many BOM-bible connections are made through the KJV that would not make sense without it.

[ute4ever]

While spending time in the blessed Arkansas-Little Rock mission, I found the eXtreme Teen Bible was quite popular amongst the locals. A Jesus who said "wassup" was more appealing.

[non sequitur]

It's official! If I ever have a rock band, I'm going to name it Textus Receptus.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by danimal

I'm not fond of KJV and think we should supplement from other versions. However, KJV is essential to us because it is the version joseph smith was familiar with when he translated the book of mormon and many BOM-bible connections are made through the KJV that would not make sense without it.

I get where you're coming from. I would mention, though, that non-English speakers in the Church have had to deal with the non-KJV component from the beginning, and there are now more non-English folks in the Church than English ones. I could see using KJV footnotes or putting the KJV-sensitive passages in an appendix. Language changes over time and scriptural texts have changed with it. Even the Catholic Church had to accede to Latin's obsolescence, and that after centuries of teaching that it was holy.

As a practical matter, I'm doing the supplementing you speak of. It's quite refreshing.