The View from Here: 400 years after its publication, LDS Church sticks with King James Bible

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JM Lehi, UT
    March 15, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    A great article, but same sad situation in comments. Some LDS wishing to discuss their faith, and some anti-Mormons pretending they aren't anti-Mormons, here to attack the beliefs of others. The purpose of scripture isn't to prove anything, but to enlighten.

    Still, these fulltime critics have been given many evidences and references showing the BoM, JST, and PoPG are miraculous, and critical claims support that. Their responses are typically to simply move to another article, or disregard, or deny without thought or examination.

    I'm not sure, but it seems they are only hoping to catch someone who doesn't know much and lead them astray. Maybe this is why the last thing they want is for you to know they are professional anti-Mormons, but clearly, anyone reading DN comments knows what they are doing here.

    I love them, but can't help but wonder if they don't have anything better to do?

    Oh, and @pickle, if you wish to help me make better comments perhaps you could show which references i gave that you looked into and why they didn't support the claim...luvya heaps!!! : )

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    March 12, 2011 8:57 p.m.

    The KJV is a beautiful translation. However, it is a misunderstanding to think that the use of "thou and thine" is is more formal than the common modern English counterparts: "you" and "yours." English used at the time of the KJV's completion included an informal speech pattern used between families and friends. To address a friend WITHOUT using informal forms (like "thee," or "thou") put distance "betwixt thee and thy friends." Read the dedication page in the KJV, it speaks to King James in the plural (using you and yours); as opposed to "thy majesty" you get "your majesties."

    In modern English, the use of informal forms have nearly disappeared. Many assume that using "thee" or "thou" was reserved for those of the highest rank or privilege in society.

    Not true.

    It was, in fact, just the opposite. The friendliest and most informal way to address each other involved using language many now consider off-putting and archaic.

    Nevertheless, the KJV is a beautiful translation. It harmonizes well with the Book of Mormon. But even Joseph worked with Greek and Hebrew to add to his spiritual understanding of scripture. Perhaps we could too... humbly, gracefully and righteously.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    March 12, 2011 5:37 p.m.

    Sharrona: 1.Pure evil is the evil one in action. Evil, in itself has a life of its own and it spreads among people like plague. It is instigated by the evil one. When the Savior prayed for us to be delivered from evil, He meant exactly that. I also add Please Father, deliver us from evil

    2. For they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost. The beatitudes were on a spiritual plane, not carnal. Joseph Smith did not misunderstand the text. Jesus was speaking of the Gospel. Food does not satisfy a hunger after righteousness, only the spiritual fulfillment of the word of the Lord can satisfy that hunger.

    3, Bethabara and Bethany were the same place. But I might add this is not the same Bethany where Lazarus lived.

    4. Alma wrote this almost 600 years after they left Jerusalem. He saying that the Lord will be born in the land of their forefathers who were from Jerusalem.

    I love the KJV of the Scriptures. They speak to me with the clarity of the voice of God. People are looking hear and there, trying to find Him, but they change the Scriptures which most represent Him.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    March 12, 2011 3:30 p.m.

    Jack Pack Lambert said, Most areas where the JST differs from the KJV are delineated in the footnotes or appendix sections of the LDS Edition of the Scriptures. Huh?
    The Johannes comma (1 John 5:7,) crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages around (11th or 12th), " Modern Bible translations exclude it:NIV),NASB),(ESV),(NRSV),or relegate it to the footnotes.
    Somehow within the one God there exist three distinct Persons (Matt 28:19). Tertullian (c. 155-220) coined the term "Trinity" to describe this early Christian belief that God is a "tri-unity". And in (Nicea 325 A. D ) both prior to the addition in the middle ages. Check your LDS edition for footnotes that support the Johanine Comma. One of several examples like Mark 16:9-20,JS did not know.
    Modern Scholarship has nothing to hide.

  • hairypatches Hurricane, UT
    March 12, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    I wish that some day we as Latter Day Saints can come to grips with the idea that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in some of the translations. Look at the title page of the B of M for instance, the last line reads "if there are errors they are the errors of men". Why can't we admit that with over 3500 variants from the original B of M that maybe the JST & the KJ versions of the bible might need a little help too like putting them into modern American English which is our language after all. Not the old English of King James. We do it for all the other languages of the world, but we refuse to do it for ourselves? Interesting to me.....

  • hairypatches Hurricane, UT
    March 12, 2011 2:08 p.m.

    There is only one place in the entire KJV of the Bible where it talks about the Trinity Doctrine of the Father, Word and Holy Spirit being one, This is known by scholars as the Johanine Comma found in 1 John 5:7-8. If you look at any of the early greek translations of the NT those verses are not there. It is however in the KJV & the JST. To the Catholics credit they have changed those verses in "The New American Bible" to read more true to the earliest texts. Those verses were obviously added by some good Latin scribe along the way after the Nicene Creed in 325CE.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    March 12, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    Most areas where the JST differs from the KJV are delineated in the footnotes or appendix sections of the LDS Edition of the Scriptures. Others are found in the Book of Moses and JST Matthew both in the Pearl of Great Price.

    There are a few variations that were not included in the footnotes, and there are some who feel that some of these should have been included.

    The KJV is a good translation, but definantly not perfect. However nothing made by man is perfect. The Book of Mormon is not perfect in translation nor in original form. We are told not to condemn it because of the mistakes of men that appear in it.

    God speaks to us in our own language. However language changes, and language varies based on location, class, educational background and other factors. As long as we are trying to understand God's plan in our flawed language we will have to be weary of possible problems.

  • OC Surfer Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    March 12, 2011 5:47 a.m.

    In Japan, the LDS Church uses the Colloquial Japan Bible Society of the Bible which was directly translated from the original Greek bible. In many cases, the verses in Japanese from the Japanese Bible Society Bible, are more closer in meaning to the English Joseph Smith translation than it is to the English King James Version. Interesting...

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    March 11, 2011 6:06 p.m.

    Bill in Nebrsaka,
    1."And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (3Nephi 13:12) compare,
    1. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Mt 6:13& 6:14 JST)
    "The KJV renders its 'deliver us from evil,'(force),Dan B. Wallace, Should be, the evil one (MT 6:13 NIV). Poor KJV Translation.

    2. And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be* filled. added [with the Holy Ghost] ?(3Nephi 12:6) compare
    2. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be *filled. (Mt 5:6 KJV)
    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.

    3. Jesus' baptism "in Bethabara" (Nephi 10:9) Bethabara , (John 1:34 JST),
    3. In Bethany "(John 1:28 NIV) P. 66, 75, support Jesus baptism in BETHANY.

    4. Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) corrected in the inspired version.
    4. Bethlehem Micah 5:2, Bethlehem (John 7:42 KJV and JST)

  • Europe Topeno, Finland
    March 11, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    For God so loved us, that He sent His Son to us - and He did visit His people, even on the other continents.
    The LDS Church is not there to prove this, because the Holy Ghost bears witness to You and me of that.

    As to the Bible translations... In my part of the world we use the most recent Lutheran translation... sadly it has nothing to do with Martin Luther any more.
    I hate to read a book (not Bible anymore) where one of my favorite scripture is mistranslated... word TREASURE is changed to PLENTIFUL STORAGE... I never consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a plentiful storage, but rather the TREASURE that lights my life.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    March 11, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    To Megan and Skeptin: What you are saying is not correct. The Church is not even trying to authenticate the Book of Mormon. That is a falicy that critics outside the Church is using. It is individual members who are trying to authenticate it, not the Church itself.

    Secondly, the Church has as has been mentioned the entire Joseph Smith translation is in the LDS version of the KJV. Those outside the Church do not realize this.

    Also it is NOT Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. He did not write the Book of Mormon. To know for sure one must take seriously the challenge that Moroni has given. In fact, all of the Leaders of the Church will tell you that BOM geography IS NOT important. It is totally secondary to the revelations received via the Holy Ghost.

    Too many people are trying to insinuate things that are not true. Next year the entire Sunday School lessons will be on the Book of Mormon. The Church in fact in all its lessons utitlize the Book of Mormon more than the Bible in its teachings. The Bible is used more in support of the Book of Mormon.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    March 11, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    Since the Mormon church can not authenticate the history of Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon it would be imprudent for the church to try to defend Joseph Smith's editing of the Bible and encounter further world persiflage.

  • BYR Woods Cross, UT
    March 11, 2011 10:46 a.m.

    I understand but no longer use the KJV for personal use. In Church, yes, so we are all on the same page, but I find the NET far more informative and the NET footnotes, with modern scholarship is very valuable. For example, try reading Isaiah in the KJV, then the NET then in the BoM. Read all the footnotes along the way. It helped me to understand what Isaiah was writing about and why Nephi wanted to include Isaiah in his record.

  • RichDaddy Logan, UT
    March 11, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    I love the almost poetic language of the KJV. I have read other versions and it somehow has a different feel to me. It is somehow more comfortable and less casual. I guess it inspires reverence. Just one man's opinion.

  • Northern Lights Louisville, KY
    March 11, 2011 8:22 a.m.


    There are significant portions of the Joseph Smith Translation included in the footnotes of the LDS edition of the KJV of the Bible. With this, I don't see a practical need to publish anything different at the moment.

    I'm grateful for those who produced the KJV of the Bible using such lovely prose and I'm also grateful for Joseph Smith contributions. I believe that both can be trusted.

  • megen Truth or Consequences, NM
    March 11, 2011 7:40 a.m.

    I wonder why the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible isn't used. If Smith was the prophet of the restoration, why isn't his translation acceptable? Is the KJV used to minimize the differences between the LDS and evangelicals? Or is the KJV more accurate? How could it be if it wasn't translated by prophets?