1. The KJV sucks.
2. I don't believe "thou" and "thee" and those other words are inherently sacred and there is no compelling need to keep them in scriptures.
3. Many, many passages in the KJV are simply difficult to comprehend and this is not necessary.
4. The KJV includes many errors.
5. Some errors are addressed by the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), but it is largely ignored.
6. Let's ditch the KJV and make a new bible!
[EDIT: This on page 3:
/EDIT]Shawn wrote:You got me thinking. The KJV Bible is a venerable and valuable work. I really am sorry for saying it sucks. I can be more respectful while advocating for the use of something new.SamBee wrote:I don't think it "sucks" at all. It is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language. In terms of influence upon English - including the colloquial variety - it is more influential than any other work. Even Shakespeare doesn't come close, and he gave us many popular phrases. I have a book next door which details the large number of phrases which it has given us.
I’ve been working on combining the testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John so it reads as one flowing narrative. I thought it would be fairly simple, but the scope keeps creeping. I have been scrutinizing every sentence, comma, semi-colon, and other punctuation marks. I compare the four books to other translations and study various commentaries to be sure I convey the correct meaning as much as possible.
I have learned that THE KING JAMES VERSION SUCKS! I had wondered why we should keep using a book with such archaic language, and why we pray using that language. I read this:
That made sense to me. Though he was speaking about prayer, it can be appled to scripture. The Spanish language has the following forms of the word “you”:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to use special language in addressing prayers to our Father in Heaven... In offering prayers in the English language, members of our Church do not address our Heavenly Father with the same words we use in speaking to a fellow worker, to an employee or employer, or to a merchant in the marketplace. We use special words that have been sanctified by use in inspired communications...Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. (The Language of Prayer -DALLIN H. OAKS)
-Singular informal: tú
-Singular formal: usted
-Plural informal: vosotros
-Plural formal: ustedes
But then I learned this:
Language always evolves over time, and I can see how "thee" and "thou" may be considered sacred - we have made them sacred; they are not inherently sacred. It is useful to distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, but there has got to be a better way to do that! We have a plethora of books that do not use such archaic language and we don't seem to have a hard time discerning whether the object being addressed is one person or a group....distinctions remain in both French (tu/vous) and German (du/Sie). There is an informal "you" that one uses with those one knows, and a more polite, reserved "you" that one uses in other company. Thou and you at some point in Middle English operated the same way. Thou would have been used by those of higher standing addressing those beneath them (such as a master addressing a servant) or commoners addressing one another. You, on the other hand, would have been used by those of lower social standing addressing those above them (such as a child addressing a parent) or by the upper class addressing one another. Thou implied intimacy; you implied a polite reserve...Thou was essentially extinct in standard English usage by the 1700s. One of the main reasons thou survives at all is Tyndale's translations of the Bible into English in the early sixteenth century. In his translations (for which he was condemned to die at the stake in 1536), Tyndale returned to the simpler convention of Old English, consistently using thou in singular usage and ye in plural usage. As Tyndale's work became the foundation for the King James version of the Bible in 1611, thou was preserved for posterity.
Ironically, however, the association of thou with Biblical verse and classical literature has completely reversed thou's original standing. Thou—when it is used at all—is now viewed as the language of solemn ceremony and formality, while our you is the more colloquial of the two terms. (Thou Pesky "Thou")
Brother Oaks continued:
This is baffling because I believe Brother Oaks is very intelligent and would understand that revelations are filtered through the mind of the receiver. Joseph Smith recorded revelations in biblical language because he was familiar with it and just thought it should be that way. I assume Brother Oaks does not believe Jesus literally said those words. Obviously, Jesus spoke another language and his words were translated (and words like "thou" are used only because Tyndale chose to use them, as noted above). Brother Oaks does acknowledge how the usage of the words have changed and says:Brothers and sisters, the special language of prayer is much more than an artifact of the translation of the scriptures into English. Its use serves an important, current purpose. We know this because of modern revelations and because of the teachings and examples of modern prophets...
We have scriptural record of three beautiful translated prayers the Savior offered during his earthly ministry. They are models for all of us. Notable in each of these prayers are the words thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours.
In teaching his disciples what we call the Lord’s Prayer, the Savior said, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.”
Maybe he is right about that. I don't know. But I do think the way we say words makes the difference. We can use a respectful tone when saying "you."But the history of English usage is not the point.
Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.
Unfortunately, "thee" and "thou" are NOT the biggest language stumbling blocks in the KJV, in my opinion. There are phrases that simply don't make sense. Consider this from Matthew 6:
What the heck does that last sentence mean‽ For many years, I didn't understand this. It baffled me. Then I read these versions:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?...34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Wow, that is so much simpler.New International Version (NIV):
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
New Living Translation (NLT):
"So don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today's trouble is enough for today."
English Standard Version (ESV):
"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
Here's another issue: The KJV has stuff that shouldn't be there! Our church is the one that believes in continuing revelation, but we don't update scriptures when better manuscripts are discovered (revealed). Churches that do not believe in modern prophets/revelation, and who like to tell us "Do not add or take away from the bible," are totally willing to accept changes when warranted. Here is the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6:
There are two very interesing things going on here. First, the last sentence is omitted in the NLT and GW versions (and most of the other versions). This is why:KJV:
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
"And don't let us yield to temptation, but rescue us from the evil one."
GOD'S WORD Translation (GW):
"Don't allow us to be tempted. Instead, rescue us from the evil one."
The second issue with the Lord's Prayer in the KJV is the term "lead us not into temptation." There are two footnotes in the LDS bible: "13a JST Matt. 6: 14 And suffer us not to be led into temptation..." and "b Syriac: do not let us enter into temptation." The NLT and GW versions simply make it right in the text, while we mostly ignore the footnotes (especially on electronic devices, where such important footnotes are not easily noticed). There are many more verses that should probably me omitted (List of Bible verses not included in modern translations - Wikipedia).The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke's version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew, representative of the Alexandrian text, but is present in the manuscripts representative of the Byzantine text. It is thus absent in the oldest and best manuscripts of Matthew, and most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew. Modern translations generally omit it. (Lord's Prayer - Wikipedia)
I don't see why we stick with the KJV. I suppose it's just tradition. I am troubled by the fact that we don't update our scriptures when further knowledge is obtained.
I am concerned about the trampling of the JST. I have understood that Joseph was commanded to make some important changes to the bible and put a lot of work into doing so, yet those changes are relegated to mere footnotes that are largely ignored. Footnotes do not show up at all in the "LDS Gospel Library" application until one opens a link (or views another frame, depending on the platform). On my phone, I turned the footnotes off to make the text cleaner. This can also be done on lds.org. For years, I have thought the JST text should be in the body of the verses and the original text should be put in footnotes. Are we too ashamed to do that? Do we not stand behind the work Joseph did? Are we afraid that other denominations will criticize us for the changing the bible, even though they use bibles that have been through many updates?
In conclusion, I would like to abandon the KJV. However, I don't want to adopt another version because there are issues with copyrights. It would be a HUGE job, but I think the church has the resources to make its own version that uses ALL the knowledge we now have and faithfully incorporates the JST.