Why Do Mormons Use Kjv Of The Bible

[Prodigal_Son1]

You can use what ever traditions and customs you want. You have every right to do so. But don’t sit there and try to tell me that we need to publish a new bible every year and the best way to study the bible is to use 14 bibles and compare them every single time just to learn a doctrine.

You miss my point. Through the Church we could go back to no Bibles for individuals and live the faith as Christ taught.

With all the versions that I have, I have the Bibles in the languages they were translated from. Even with that, I would never depend totally on my interpretation alone. All those translations are for me and not the Church.

The Church has 2000 years of studying scriptures and teaching traditions that I would never catch even if I had 100 versions of the Bible and the time to study them all.

The Church teaches me doctrines and I believe them through Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world.

 

[falisrm]

So, since we’ll turn the bible into pure capitalism. Any church that could sell the most bibles in their version would win. So everyone would then say. Look they sold the most bibles so that church must have the most accurate bible. Then it would be fierce competition, with sales of the bible. And you could get discounts for worse versions of the bible. Then you can discredit other churches that don’t sell as well, their version of the bible. I can see it all now.

 

[RedSoxFan]

So what do you think John ment when he wrote it? Did he say, oh, re publish my words every year after different scholars re translate it. (wouldn’t scholars get sick of translating the same exact thing over and over again, what a ****** job)

Or did John teach a principle no one is following very well, which is preserve the words he wrote.

This is starting to drive me insane. Any 5 year old understands these principles and no one is agreeing with me. So the only thing i have with me is a normal 5 year old and some extra common sense.

Well I think he meant the actual changing of the Apocalypse (revelation). IE say the Dragon actually gets the woman crowned with 12 stars but she can be saved if you give these group of gnostics gold pieces. I don’t think he was talking about translating from one language to another. And over time that’s basically how new editions of the bible come about, because the old translation is practically a different language now.

Uhm… if only 5 year olds get you your either doing really well, or horribly wrong.

Go ahead and have a good weekend I would hate for you to loose your debating form and get burned out. Come back.

 

[falisrm]

ProdicalSon, i understand what your saying and its a different topic. That’s ok though. I’ll stay out of it.

 

[RedSoxFan]

So, since we’ll turn the bible into pure capitalism. Any church that could sell the most bibles in their version would win. So everyone would then say. Look they sold the most bibles so that church must have the most accurate bible. Then it would be fierce competition, with sales of the bible. And you could get discounts for worse versions of the bible. Then you can discredit other churches that don’t sell as well, their version of the bible. I can see it all now.

Yeah I wasn’t saying that. I was saying that capitalism would ensure that “true” or “faithful” versions of the bible would stay in print. I wasn’t saying the one who has the most money in the end wins.

LOL your imagery is too much!

 

[RedSoxFan]

going to walk on the beach with the wife. Talk to you all later:thumbsup:

 

[falisrm]

Thats exactly what happens in capitalism and is exactly what would happen if you turned the bible into capitalism. It doesn’t “ensure” anything except the one that was sold the most and is the most popular.

 

[falisrm]

Silence… Gosh, some people can’t handle getting ripped by common sense. God help us all. Can i get just a little common sense down here?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

i thought you said you were going to school now.

 

[tommiatkins]

what are you talking about???

In a nutshell, the message of the bible changes as mankinds morals evolve. The Koran cant be altered so it dosnt change and Islam is stuck.

the Bible is manmade, “god” cant keep up to date with our evolving humanity, so we need to keep fresh versions of “his divine word” chrning out or we will be stuck at the point we stop.

the BOM was a pretty good crack at writing gods word, for the 19th century, it had all the 19th c morals in there including racism and emerging American supremacy. you cant have some two-bit dusthole like Isreal being the centre of events can you?

hope that clears it up. :0

 

[zerinus]

they are not changing the meaning in the translation. FYI, KJV is a copy of a lot of previous English translated Bibles, with a lot of influence from the German Luthern Bible.

Perhaps you missed my post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4090451#post4090451

The KJV was translated from the original tongues. It was an independent translation. But it makes use of other works, especially Tyndale’s translation. The influence of Luther’s translation is not that great. Here is an extract from their dedicatory preface to the book:

THE HOLY BIBLE

TRANSLATED OUT OF THE
ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE
FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED
AND REVISED, BY HIS MAJESTY’S
SPECIAL COMMAND

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

This preface is printed at the beginning of every edition of the KJV, including the one published by the LDS Church. There is no reason to misunderstand.

zerinus

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Perhaps you missed my post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4090451#post4090451

The KJV was translated from the original tongues. It was an independent translation. But it makes use of other works, especially Tyndale’s translation. The influence of Luther’s translation is not that great. Here is an extract from their dedicatory preface to the book:

This preface is printed at the beginning of every edition of the KJV, including the one published by the LDS Church. There is no reason to misunderstand.

zerinus

so what? This was for the King - naturally they would be pompous about it. The point is the Reformation started the translation of the Bible from Latin into the language of the common people. Luther’s Bible was before KJV. Anyway, what is your point?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In a nutshell, the message of the bible changes as mankinds morals evolve. The Koran cant be altered so it dosnt change and Islam is stuck.

the Bible is manmade, “god” cant keep up to date with our evolving humanity, so we need to keep fresh versions of “his divine word” chrning out or we will be stuck at the point we stop.

the BOM was a pretty good crack at writing gods word, for the 19th century, it had all the 19th c morals in there including racism and emerging American supremacy. you cant have some two-bit dusthole like Isreal being the centre of events can you?

hope that clears it up. :0

The Bible is NOT evolving. If anything, it is getting more and more accurate and precise, from the translations from the original documents which have been found in this Century. But the CONTENT is NOT changing!!

 

[zerinus]

so what? This was for the King - naturally they would be pompous about it. The point is the Reformation started the translation of the Bible from Latin into the language of the common people. Luther’s Bible was before KJV. Anyway, what is your point?

My point was the one I made in this and in the previous post. What didn’t you understand about that?

zerinus

 

[RedSoxFan]

Silence… Gosh, some people can’t handle getting ripped by common sense. God help us all. Can i get just a little common sense down here?

LOL I went for a walk with my wife. Didn’t you see that?

 

[RedSoxFan]

Thats exactly what happens in capitalism and is exactly what would happen if you turned the bible into capitalism. It doesn’t “ensure” anything except the one that was sold the most and is the most popular.

Uhm then that is exactly what is happening right now. It’s not really a prediction of the future. The one that sells the most is the most popular, but I never said correct. But I will say there are many theologically correct bibles on the market for sale today.

You can find them with the words “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” in the front of them.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Perhaps you missed my post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4090451#post4090451

The KJV was translated from the original tongues. It was an independent translation. But it makes use of other works, especially Tyndale’s translation. The influence of Luther’s translation is not that great. Here is an extract from their dedicatory preface to the book:

This preface is printed at the beginning of every edition of the KJV, including the one published by the LDS Church. There is no reason to misunderstand.

zerinus

Oh I agree it was an independent translation. But it is one that conferred with the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate before it was finished. Thats all.

 

[Lilyflower]

Mormons believe that evil apostate Catholics removed “plain and precious things” from the Bible. So for them, the KJV is as good as it gets, but not good enough.

KJV was widely used in early 19th century USA…it was the Bible on hand, so that’s it, the Bible they use.

Slightly off track, I am interested to know why so many Catholics are so interested in Mormonism and entertain them when they are so insulting to us?

A family member of mine when her husband was at Mass, was visited by Mormons, on explaining she was not interested as she was married to and respected Catholicism, the guys completely demolished her, convinced her she was already numbered among the dead and she had a nervous breakdown.

I would go to the aid of anyone, anyone that is except for a Mormon.For two men to gang up on and bully a woman into a nervious breakdown is to my mind so so sick yet Catholics everywhere [least over here] seem to go to extraordinary lengths to entertain them.???

Blessings and peace

 

[zerinus]

Oh I agree it was an independent translation. But it is one that conferred with the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate before it was finished. Thats all.

They were good scholars, and they compared their translations with all the major translations that had previously been made to make sure theirs was as acurate as possible; but that does not mean that they were unduly influenced by them. Tyndale’s translation had the greatest influence, as far as “influence” goes.

zerinus

 

[dzheremi]

I find it hilarious that all this humming and hawing is coming from a Mormon…as if you guys care at all about common sense! Tell me this: How many changes have been made to the Book of Mormon? There have been plenty and some have been quite substantial, and because the plates from which the BoM is translated are not existent, the editions published after the original cannot be said to be refined translations of the original texts.

If anyone cares to read about the many changes that the BoM has undergone since its original 1830 publication, you can read about them here…