They sort of did. The KJV they use is not the KVJ you can buy any old place. In the 80’s they had a large project that, among other things, went through to cross reference the KJV to their other scriptures (including the JST) and added footnotes with Mormon interpretation of passages.
That’s interesting about the non-English speaking Mormons. They probably have no idea about the controversy of the language used in BOM being similar to KJV!! It’s probably easier to convert them.
falis,
Well, it would be worthwhile to get a more modern translation, because they are more accurate than the KJV. The authors of the KJV didn’t have so many manuscripts to work with as scholars today do. That’s one way to get closer to the originals- get another translation of the Bible.
Falisrm, your “logic” is faulty. Current translation capabilities are better. And, language changes. The English language of the KJV is NOT the language you are speaking today. In the KJV, words that we no longer use, or have evolved to a different understanding, no longer match up to the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic intent. Creating a difficult translation to the person reading.
Perhaps you believe we use the Latin Bible today? Some do, but I don’t speak or read Latin, so I use the New American Bible.
Current translationss of the Bible are entirely from the oldest manuscripts available and considerable time was spent comparing manuscripts, in order to translate as close as possible to the corresponding English word, meaning and sense of what the originals were conveying.
I am not sure if you intend to connect the first sentence with the content of the rest of this paragraph, but just for your own reference, the Tagalog-speaking Filipinos have had their own Bible translation since 1905 (source), and according to Mormonwiki the first Mormon missionaries did not arrive in the Philippines until 1961.
falis,
You are both wrong. The KJV was translated from the original tongues by the King James’ scholars. It was neither done from the Luther’s German Bible nor from the Latin Vulgate. Being good scholar, they compared their own translations with those of others, in order to make sure it was as good and accurate as they could make it; but it was done from the original tongues, not from someone else’s.
Nope, they used the bible translated by Martin Luther for the KJV.
We don’t say that. I don’t know where you got that from. We use the KJV because we think it is the best one available in English; but we don’t have anything against anyone making their own translations of the Bible. Some independent translations of the Bible (like the Jerusalem Bible for example, which is a Catholic translation) are also very good, and can help increase our understanding of the Bible.
We don’t need to. We think the KJV is the best. Any translation we make (unless it is done by revelation) cannot improve on the KJV.
See above.
We don’t make such a claim. You are inventing things about us that we never claim. An Apostasy occurred, sure; but that does not mean that the KJV cannot be a good translation.
None of them are original though. They are all copies, of copies, of copies … that have been made over many generations.
Falis,
Here is a funny mistranslation in the Vulgate by Jerome. When Moses came down from seeing God, this translation said he had horns on his head. Michaelangelo made a famous statue of Moses with horns on his head. Later scholars found out that the word for horns meant his face shone.
Why? Do you think language doesn’t change over time? How are different people of different cultures who speak different languages supposed to be able to read and understand the Bible if not via translation? Even a knowledge of ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic would be problematic to a reader who otherwise had no background in the culture and customs of the time the books of the Bible were written.
