Other Translations of the Bible - a Church Statement

[On Own Now]

Hi Everyone,

I hope you are doing well.

I just wanted to stop by and drop a nugget from the Church, published quietly on the Church site. This is regarding other translations of the bible besides the KJV.

The Church, in its most recent adjustments to the General Handbook, has now made statements that basically say the KJV is the preferred version to be used in Church meetings for consistency reasons, but that other versions may be used because they are "both doctrinally clear and also easier to understand." Further, the Church provides a list of specific versions it sort of endorses, including the NRSV, ESV and NIV, although 'endorse' is my term, not theirs.

The key statement from the latest General Handbook: "Generally, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in discussions and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other Bible translations may also be used. Some individuals may benefit from translations that are doctrinally clear and also easier to understand. Examples of such translations can be found in the Church’s Holy Bible list."

A few interesting quotes from the article in the 'newsroom' section the Church's site follow.

Elder Renlund: “The Lord said that He speaks to men and women ‘after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding’ (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24),” the Apostle says. “Clearly, God’s children are more inclined to accept and follow His teachings when they can understand them.”

Elder Jörg Klebingat (of the Seventy, a member of the Scriptures Committee): “There’s a misconception that modern translations of the Bible are less than faithful to the ancient sources — that in modernizing the language, translators have compromised or dumbed down the doctrine,” says Elder Klebingat. “In many cases, that simply isn’t true. Modern translators often have access to manuscripts that were not available to early translators. And most modern translations were produced by faithful scholars and linguists who are utterly convinced that the Bible is the word of God. The simplified language they use supports — rather than compromises — understanding of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.”

Sister Tamara W. Runia, First Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency: “We can all benefit from translations made by our Christian brothers and sisters to enhance our study and faith as disciples of Christ,” says Sister Tamara W. Runia. “Our hope is that everyone will feel welcome and respected, no matter the translation they connect with and choose to use. What matters most is how the scriptures speak to our spirits and draw us closer to God as we read every day.”

A parent of neurodivergent children in Utah: “For individuals with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, or other learning differences,” he says, “simpler translations can make the difference between feeling shut out of God’s word and truly connecting with it.”

(I'd add here that while I am not neurodivergent, the above statement holds for me as well, so I don't think it really needs that qualification, though I do appreciate the sensitivity and inclusivity of this statement toward people with learning and language differences.)

Links:

Article: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... sus-christ

Updated chapter in the Handbook: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... _number139

List of "translations that are both doctrinally clear and also easier to understand" (in various languages): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

--OON

[nibbler]

Wow, a blast from the past! Thanks for stopping by OON.

Also, thanks for the update.

[Roy]

Great to see you OON.

At one point, I ended up with two different versions of the JST from the reorganized church.

The first on was older had had essays and quotes from early church leaders discussing how plain and precious truths had been deliberately deleted from the bible by deceitful scribes and translators.

The 2nd one was newer and after the reorganized church had become the Community of Christ. It also had an essay in the front but basically said that JS made changes as he felt inspired to do so and that there is no indication that these changes restored anything from earliest manuscripts etc.

The LDS church is not nearly as progressive as the Community of Christ on this subject but at least there is a recognition here that these other Bible translations (NRSV, ESV, NIV, etc.) are not somehow corrupted by evil and malignant shadow forces in the non-LDS translation process.

[DarkJedi]

I welcome this news, although it is still the "policy" to use the KJV (and especially the church published edition) in classes. My personal Bible study has been with other versions for several years (I prefer the NRSV, but also use the ESV). On occasion some GAs have used other translations in talks (Uchtdorf comes to mind), and I have done so myself. My understanding of scripture has greatly increased because of other translations. I am glad this is officially sanctioned to some extent now. Baby steps.

[On Own Now]

FWIW, I also prefer the NRSV and that is my version of choice. I do think it's interesting the Church didn't say the NRSVue (updated edition) that came out about five years ago... I'm not sure I like it better than the NRSV, anyway.

Two versions they specifically listed for adults are the ESV and NRSV. The NRSV has somewhat fallen out of favor among conservative evangelical Christians in large part because of its "Gender Inclusiveness" ("Brothers and Sisters" instead of "Brothers", "people" instead of "men" and the like). In fact, I believe the ESV was created in response to the NRSV to be more literal/conservative. The ESV went back the RSV that was the same predecessor of the NRSV, but went in a slightly different direction.

FWIW, I am OK with the ESV, also, but just slightly prefer the NRSV. I prefer either by miles ahead of the KJV. DFU once quoted from the ESV, but has never quoted from the NRSV in General Conference.

The NIV is easier to read, but to me, me alone, it can occasionally seem a little like "See the dog run". I kind of prefer the slightly higher language of the ESV and NSRV. That said, the NIV is often very clear, especially compared to the KJV. DFU has also used the NIV in GC.

My wife wanted to get a study copy of one of the modern translations and I will say that there were many more readily-available choices that used the ESV and NIV, and the NRSV is a little harder to come by. There is a nice Catholic version of the NRSV text available, which has a few extra books we don't use, but nothing that would stop me from getting a copy. In fact, I think the inclusion of 1 and 2 Maccabees is a positive as these shed light on the time between the OT and the NT.

For anyone interested in comparing versions to see what you like, a great site is biblegateway, in which you can bring up side-by-side comparisons of several versions at once. I suggest bringing up a few verses from the bible that usually make you raise your eyebrows and see what the different versions say, which can lead to version that meshes well with your taste.

[DarkJedi]

I agree with your assessments, OON, and as stated earlier I am likewise inclined. While some scholars may not totally agree, my personal study Bible of choice is the Nee Oxford Annotated Bible, which does use the NRSV (and includes the Catholic portions - essentially what is referred to in the LDS church as the Apocrypha). I also use Strong's (The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). When I'm in full on in depth study mode I'm spread out on the table with my laptop, phone, Oxford, and Strong's, shifting between them. It can be exhausting. That said I don't think the average person just trying to better understand Jesus or the Bible in general needs to go that deep, and a good reading of the NRSV is likely helpful.