Why Do Mormons Use Kjv Of The Bible

[CHRISTINE77]

I know that Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, but why? KJV is largely modeled after Luther’s Bible. If all other churches fell into apostasy at some point in time, why would Mormons use a basically English translation of the Lutheran Bible?

 

[Jerusha]

It was the only version available in Joseph’s time. Many Protestants of his time believed that it is the only version inspired of God. :ehh: It was interpreted with a Protestant and anti-Semitic bias, which validates many of the doctrines of Mormonism.

Check out an interlinear and find some of the differences for yourself.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know that Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, but why? KJV is largely modeled after Luther’s Bible. If all other churches fell into apostasy at some point in time, why would Mormons use a basically English translation of the Lutheran Bible?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

King James Version

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[3] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.

Note the bolded and underlined above. Irony, huh?

 

[TriuneUnity]

King James Version

Note the bolded and underlined above. Irony, huh?

On top of that, the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate that is used by the Roman Catholic Church. That in itself, for Mormons and other KJV-onlyists, shows the irony of attacking “corrupted” Catholic scriptures while using a translation based on them lol.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, I understand that it was the Bible that was widely used in America back then. However, today, the Mormons are always saying how many translations there are of the Bible, and how it could be wrong from the many translations, blah, blah. Why don’t they go back to the original Bible and retranslate it themselves?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On top of that, the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate that is used by the Roman Catholic Church. That in itself, for Mormons and other KJV-onlyists, shows the irony of attacking “corrupted” Catholic scriptures while using a translation based on them lol.

Actually, the Douay-Rheims was the Catholic translation of the Vulgate. The King didn’t get his hands on that.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually, the Douay-Rheims was the Catholic translation of the Vulgate. The King didn’t get his hands on that.

Right…I mean from earlier times before the Douay-Rheims.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Right…I mean from earlier times before the Douay-Rheims.

Nope, they used the bible translated by Martin Luther for the KJV.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Right…I mean from earlier times before the Douay-Rheims.

You have references I suppose? I mean you make an accusation that the Catholics are using a corrupted translation, you should show the references.

 

[ibkc]

You have references I suppose? I mean you make an accusation that the Catholics are using a corrupted translation, you should show the references.

You misunderstand him. He’s not saying he thinks our Catholic translation is corrupted; he’s noting that the Mormons think it’s corrupted while (out of ignorance) using a translation that originated with the Catholic version.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You misunderstand him. He’s not saying he thinks our Catholic translation is corrupted; he’s noting that the Mormons think it’s corrupted while (out of ignorance) using a translation that originated with the Catholic version.

Ahhh, I see. Thanks for the correction.

I deleted my errors.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I understand that it was the Bible that was widely used in America back then. However, today, the Mormons are always saying how many translations there are of the Bible, and how it could be wrong from the many translations, blah, blah. Why don’t they go back to the original Bible and retranslate it themselves?

Why don’t they use the Joseph Smith Translation?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why don’t they use the Joseph Smith Translation?

Seems there was some confusion between the different Mormon Churches.

Publication and use by the RLDS
Smith was killed prior to the publication of the translation. At the death of the Joseph Smith Jr. the manuscripts and documents pertaining to the translation were retained by his widow, Emma Smith, who would not give them to the Quorum of the Twelve although Willard Richards, apparently acting on behalf of Brigham Young, requested the new translation from her. Consequently, when the Young’s follwers moved to the Salt Lake Valley, it did so without the new translation of the Bible.

Following Joseph Smith’s death, John Milton Bernhisel asked permission of Emma Smith to copy the notes that were made into his own Bible. He spent much of the spring of 1845 working on this project. The LDS Church has this in its offices in Salt Lake City, but it contains less than half of the corrections and is not suitable for publication. For many years the Bernhisel Bible was the only source for the LDS Church members living in the Salt Lake Valley.

In 1866, Emma Smith gave the manuscripts into the custody of the RLDS church, to which she was a member and her son Joseph Smith III the prophet-president. In 1867 the RLDS published the first edition of the translation and obtained a copyright for it. The RLDS Church (now Community of Christ) still retain the original manuscripts and is the sole publisher.

LDS View
The LDS Church does accept many of the changes as doctrinally significant. However, over 600 of the more doctrinally significant verses from the translation are included as excerpts in the current LDS Church edition of the King James Version of the Bible.

Because the translation was published by the RLDS church, LDS have questioned whether it had been published accurately. However, research in the past few years with the original manuscripts has indicated that the Inspired Version of the Bible, published by the RLDS church, is an accurate representation of the sense of the original manuscripts prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes. Furthermore, it seems to be increasing in use and acceptance in LDS churches today. An official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974, contained these words:

“The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages." …

The book Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts was a culmination of ten years of joint research from both Community of Christ and LDS Church scholars, showing all of the known changes, notes and marks in margins and additional notes that were pinned on the pages of the manuscripts and Bible that were used.

 

[falisrm]

Our stance remains the same. We use one of the earliest English translations of the bible in existance. We know there are earlier translations written in Hebrew and Latin but we don’t want to translate it because we would probably to just as poor a job as other religions have done in the past. Plus, its the same thing so many other churches have done. They always create their own version of the bible to fit their own doctrine and teachings. The KJV isnt perfect but its the closest one we have in english. If you happen to know Latin, more power to you.

Personally, i was hoping the Codex Sinaiticus would be translated into English. I dont know why they don’t they don’t do it? I find it amazing.
codex-sinaiticus.net/en/

It was Catholics who compiled the bible in the first place.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Timeline of Bible Translation History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts
which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

I think this clearly shows that the KJV was NOT the first English translation of the Bible.

 

[falisrm]

i said one of the earliest.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

i said one of the earliest.

Also the Apocrypha were in all Bibles until 1880.

I think I know why Mormons use the KJV. It’s because Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon is written (sort of) in the style of KJV, and because he copied a bunch of passages out of KJV, to pad his book.

But my real question is, why don’t Mormons today, (since they have so many bright scholars) translate the Bible from the original sources, since they claim that no religion is correct, because the Church fell into apostasy in the early years, therefore the Bible translations can’t be correct. Unlike the golden plates, there are many, many historical scrolls of the Bible.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Mormons believe that evil apostate Catholics removed “plain and precious things” from the Bible.

**Of course, Joseph Smith also rejected the Apocrypha, which was originally part of the KJV.

I wonder if he was aware it existed in the KJV edition?**

 

[nebula]

I know that Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, but why? KJV is largely modeled after Luther’s Bible. If all other churches fell into apostasy at some point in time, why would Mormons use a basically English translation of the Lutheran Bible?

Because the Isaiah portions of the BoM are pretty much the same, with minor differences, to the KJV translation. So if the LDs were to switch its english speaking canon from the KJV, it’d have a problem with whether or not to update the language of the BoM. THis isn’t a problem wiht non English speaking MOrmons 9who use modern translations of the bible.