Quantcast

Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 10 2011 6:30 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pentacone
Batley, W.Yorkshire

Please do not forget the GREAT Work that our Prophet Joseph Smith Jnr. did way back in 1830!

AND, the Superb Work that our Current President did, a few years ago, with regards to the JS.Translation!!

Mormoncowboy
Provo, Ut

The observation of Mrs. Adams formal education is very similar to the things we hear of Joseph Smith, but in his case it was a fourth grade education. While this correctly observes their formal training, the reality is that people used to read more. Reading is still one of the best sources of education, particular in the fields of history and philosophy/religion. It seems that former societies counterbalanced their lack institutional education with personal study through reading, whereas today we have greater formal education with little independent study. In other words, saying that some historical figure had a specific grade of education is quite misleading as a means of demonstrating intellectual aptitudes.

As for Bible study in schools, I would be in favor of allowing it in the context of literary, or social studies. The problem is that traditionally the Bible usage in schools was intended to serve a dual purpose. On one hand it was used as a primer to assist in reading, but on the other it was intended to specifically reinforce Christian ideals and theology at the institutional level. The latter has no place in a public school system - Schools are not churches.

sharrona
layton, Ut

The KJV is a good translation but modern translations are helpful.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be *filled .(Mt 5:6)

And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be* filled. [with the Holy Ghost]?(3Nephi 12:6)

Blessed are they who hunger and thirsts for righteousness for they will be "satisfied.(Mt 5:6 NIV)
*Filled or, satisfied (chortazo, 5526),to fill or be satisfied with food not the Holy Ghost. JS misunderstood the text.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

I taught as an Adjunct at a small college for about 10 years, and I have to agree with Lane Williams, that, for the most part, college students don't know how to write. My experience was before texting became popular, so that wasn't a factor. My students didn't understand sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, or spelling. They seemed to write as they thought, and they didn't understand the importance of writing with clarity even though they seemed to not think with clarity. Even though my classes were on Computer Literacy not writing, I required several reports during the Semester, and I came down hard while grading their reports. I hope that Lane Williams is successful in his attempts to get his students to think clearly and to clearly express their thoughts.

brokenclay
Scottsdale, AZ

Well said, mormoncowboy. Joseph Smith did a lot of writing and reading. It's hard to believe he was anything close to illiterate.

As far as religion in public schools, the state has instituted a religion already there: naturalism. I think the model used in the Philippines and many other countries best coheres with our constitutional Freedom of Religion. In their public schools, all religions are allowed equal voice (not just one religion, as it is in America). This would be true freedom of religion, not the religious monopoly we have here in America.

Mormoncowboy
Provo, Ut

I disagree that schools have instituted naturalism. The efforts to maintain religious neutrality do have side effects, but the school systems generally do not propose a dichotmous paradigm that posits naturalism against theology. This in spite of some educators who are cavalier in pursuing this agenda independent of the school system. Rather, schools in the sciences should be pursuing empircism, and scientific theory. They should honestly try and present the scientific view, and be forthright in where the evidence is strong and where it is weak. Some do this well, whereas some don't. The unfortunate side effect of religious neutrality is that it presents a skewed vision of world and national history and thought, if taken too far. Students should learn of religious traditions to be prepared for a global enviroment. Schools should just not be advocating, that is the sole responsibility of parents and Church's. If these groups oppose the scientific view of things, they should then provide a better explanation. So long as schools are not advocating religion, affirmatively or negatively, this should not be seen as an encroachment on religious freedom, just education as to how science has developed.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Joseph Smith knew how to read and understood what he read. There is no doubt about this. The thing is that he couldn't formulate this into words as so many feel he could. Emma Smith, his wife, stated that he could never have written the Book of Mormon because for all practical purposes he couldn't form any sentences or paragraphs properly.

However, as he got older and became more schooled in the teachings personally by the Savior and others his understanding increased. This is what set him apart from others.

His understanding of the Bible was greater than many others who had been schooled in such for most of their lives, thus the so called misunderstanding never occurred. If you believe in revelation then you must agree the what Joseph did was greater than those who were schooled. If you don't then no matter what is said you never will believe it. Only through the testimony of the Holy Ghost will one ever come to understand that Joseph Smith was and is who he said he was.

sharrona
layton, Ut

Bill in Nebraska,"His(JS) understanding of the Bible was greater than many others who had been schooled in such for most of their lives, thus the so called misunderstanding never occurred,"?
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (3Nephi 13:12)
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Mt 6:13&6:14JST)

"Although the KJV renders this 'deliver us from evil,' the presence of the article indicates not evil (force), but the evil one himself. In Matthew's Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus' temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one". Daniel B. Wallace. Should be, "the evil one(MT 6:13 NIV). JS follows the poor KJV Translation.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

To Sharrona:

On many of the verses and the differences there really is no difference. It is a different intrepretation is all. To deliver one from evil is no different than to deliver us from the evil one. The same is said when you state, the only one of the father is the same as the ONLY BEGOTTEN. The difference is intrepretation. To try and take one translation over another is completel idiotic. To try and use this to say Joseph Smith was mistaken is totally ludicrous. This also proves that the King James version is probably more precise than the so called modern translation you are using.

I see nothing where this comes to anywhere near explaining how Joseph Smith could not have translated it correctly except it is strictly your opinion and that of cmtam and others that it isn't. Under whose authority does it mean Joseph Smith did. If you cite other scholars then you are as mistaken as they are.

Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God. That there is no doubt for me. To cite other scriptures is beyond belief except it meets with your intrepretations.

sharrona
layton, Ut

Bill in Nebraska: This also proves that the King James version is probably more precise than the so called modern translation you are using. I see nothing where this comes to anywhere near explaining how Joseph Smith could not have translated it correctly except it is strictly your opinion, wrong.
But deliver us from evil.(Mt 6:13). LDS Bible footnote d, Gr. Protect us from the evil one .

Tou ponerou, or the one of evil.(Mt 6:13 Greek N.T.)JS followed the poor KJV translations,

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

@Vanka

I believe the Bible to be the word of God. It is my belief that most other members would say the same. I spend a lot of time reading and trying to understand the Bible better. I certainly would not do so if I was not convinced of its veracity.

In my experience, the translation caveat is a very minor one with precious little that is actually excepted. As to an accurate translation, I suppose we would reference the Joseph Smith translation in conjunction with KJV.

Certainly we believe the church to true. But that is no more arrogant than the claims of Roman Catholics or of certain protestant denominations that believe that their doctrines are correct to the exclusion of others.

As to whom God approves and loves. From D&C 1:30 " . . . the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually "

Whatever God's feelings are toward the church, as individuals, we have no preeminent claim on his love or favor. We are all his children but we all fall somewhat short of their potential.

diamondladi
Gambrills, MD

I agree with the writer about the wonderful influence of the King James version of the Bible on the English language and its writing structure. (Not even counting its wonderful influence on the character and morality of a people, and its ability to bring people to Christ) The King James version is credited with influencing William Shakespeare who in turn influence the language.
The poet Emily Dickinson's primary reading material was the KJV, Shakespeare, and Hymnals. It has been a great influence on many great writers. Personally I feel it's poetry and prose are even more beautiful because of the truth they hold.

cmtam
lake forest, ca

RE: Twin Lights,"In my experience,the translation caveat is a very minor one with precious little that is actually excepted". I would agree but,Mormon comments about the KJV. "The Bible is not a sufficient guide; its only the
history of the people who lived 1800 years ago." Orson Hyde.
"ignorant translators, careless transcribers ,or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." Joseph Smith. And Mormons wonder why Christians have issues with them.
This is why Christians,"contend for the faith which was delivered unto the saints".(Jude 3)

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

@cmtam

Mainline and even fundamentalist Christians often express doubts about certain Biblical passages.

I have even heard or read Biblical commentators who don't agree with the inclusion of certain books in the New Testament.

No one would describe these folks as anti-Bible. Yet generally, Mormons have even fewer problems with the Bible than some of these folks.

I don't think issues of Biblical translation are the root of most other Christians problems with those of the Mormon faith. The translation issues are a relative sideshow.

cmtam
lake forest, ca

Twin lights: "No one would describe these folks as anti-Bible. Yet generally,Mormons have even fewer problems with the Bible than some of these folks".
True,agnostics inside the Christian Churches cause more problems than the cults.
Inside the pale of Christianity you have liberal wing likes "The Jesus seminar"and the secular theologians(agnostics) of higher criticism, like those who teach 'the two Isaiahs'. Yet the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls
especially the Isaiah scrolls(200 B.C.)which virtually agrees with the Isaiah(KJV)we have today ,as well as the Greek Septuagint Isaiah.(250 B.C.) more importantly, The Apostle John quotes Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 in (John 12:38-41).
The Apostle believed there was only one Isaiah.

JS makes hundreds of changes to the book of Isaiah in the inspired version,even to(Isaiah 29:14 JST)the prophecy of the BoM? Which his changes are refuted by the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Masoretic texts.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

@cmtam

The folks I am thinking of are hardly liberals nor are they fans of higher criticism.

I am talking about conservative and serious students of the scripture who I have heard on standard Christian radio shows (which around here are quite conservative).

Look up Antilegomena.

The first one who comes to mind is Martin Luther himself. He had what can best be described as an on and off again relationship with several books in the Bible and I dont think he ever reconciled himself to the Epistle of James.

Also there is on-going controversy reference Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

Just two points but all I have time for right now.

?
Fort Knox, KY

It is blessing to have the Bible no matter the translation, especially considering what many went through to translate it.

Some might find this program interesting, "That Promised Day: The Coming Forth of the LDS Scriptures," shown through BYUTV.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

To cmtam: The problem is that the Chapter of Isaiah you mention also is found in the Book of Mormon completely different than what is in the Bible. There is relative reason for this but that I don't think matters. What matters is that Joseph Smith didn't translate Greek to English as many of the translators did. His entire script was totally revelation. That is the difference between his inspired version of the King James Version and that commonly used by most Christians. Many call him a false prophet but all of the teachings and the doctrines of the LDS Church is found in the Bible. The problem is that many Christians go with what came out of the many creeds hundreds of years after the death of the Savior and the Apostles/Individuals that wrote the books of the New Testament. It all boils down to translation and ones own interpretation of the Bible.

Again I will take the words of a an individual I classify as a prophet of God over any scholar. The reason for this is most scholars go with the normal teaching and not by revelation.

Vanka
Provo, UT

Twin Lights,

I would love to believe your claim, but the facts show otherwise.

You wrote: "As to an accurate translation, I suppose we would reference the Joseph Smith translation in conjunction with KJV."

Unfortunately, your own Church does not recognize the Joseph Smith Translation as canonical (it is not part of the LDS Standard Works).

Moreover, if Joseph Smith had meant "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated in the JST", don't you think he would have said so?

The point holds and is irrefutable:

So long as no "correct translation" of the Bible exists on the face of the earth, the caveat in the LDS Article of Faith #8 can ONLY mean that LDS do NOT believe the Bible (that exists on earth) is the word of God.

That anti-Bible sentiment among Mormons also explains why this comment section, on an article about the Bible, turned into a "praise the Book of Mormon" blog!

That is not trivial in any way, and is a major reason most Biblical Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

cmtam
lake forest, ca

RE: Twin Lights, Martin Luther ... He had what can best be described as an on and off again relationship with several books in the Bible and I dont think he ever reconciled himself to the Epistle of James."
Canonicity is a different issue than textual lower or hgher criticism.
antilegomena" (books "spoken against") and the "homologoumena" (books unanimously attested as apostolic), Luther's opinions regarding James and
Revelation did not prevent him from revering these books and teaching from them as God's Word.

Martin Luther on James and Revelation, I would not hereby prevent anyone from including him or extolling him as he pleases. Theologia et
Apologia , p.183.
But Luther had very significant issues with the Apocryphal books,as a rule of faith. In fact the Council of Trent was a counter reformation move to
affirm them as authoritative scripture by the RCC.
Luther knew that the reformation would open the doors for sects and cults,but he thought the average man needed access to the Bible. Mormons should be thankful for Luther . "A simple plowboy can understand the gospel, you need a priest to make it difficult. Martin Luther

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments