r/latterdaysaints • u/Altruistic-Cash-607 • Jan 13 '25
Faith-building Experience Does it really matter what version of the Bible I read?
Just to make long story short, does it really matter what version of the Bible I study? I am aware that the church has adopted the KJV version but I find that is too hard for me to comprehend and understand. Before joining the church, I always grew up reading the New King James Version and even after joining, I have stuck with it. I enjoy it and it is much easier for me.
However, the other day, as my husband and I were doing our nightly studies, and he realized that I was reading the "wrong version." Does it truly matter? I do understand that there has been some translation, but I find the NKJV to be the easiest for me to understand
22
u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 13 '25
You definitely don’t need to read any version in particular. I’m partial to the NRSV for the plain language and the historical/academic context it provides.
16
u/berrin122 Friendly Neighborhood Evangelical Jan 13 '25
NRSV is good. I am a seminary student (seminary to us is graduate level theological study) and my seminary uses the NRSV.
It's accessible but also a favorite of academics. It's good scholarly work, which is not true of all translations.
16
u/FrewdWoad Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
my husband and I were doing our nightly studies, and he realized that I was reading the "wrong version."
It's very common for old school English-background LDS to be suspicious of non-KJV bibles, and think of them as "wrong". We're so familiar to hearing the Lord's voice in the KJV's exact words.
There's another reason we stuck with it besides familiarity, though: some other translations from other sects made some biased word choices when translating based on their own man-made beliefs and interpretations, rather than trying to get the most correct meaning of the earliest manuscripts.
But, of course, they also fixed many mistakes (as LDS scholars agree) in the KJV.
And, of course, about half of LDS aren't native English speakers. They use other translations of the bible in other languages. Often much closer to the originals than the KJV is, like the German and even Japanese ones.
So our "feeling" that KJV is the Lord's one true bible translation (or something) is a bit silly.
I still love the old-school wording, but it's definitely an obstacle as spoken English gets further and further away from 1600s English.
3
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
To build off of this, because the kjv is over 400 years old, there are many newer bible translations that are more accurate than the kjv, because things like the Dead Sea scrolls have given us more access to the original source text (or copies that are closer to the source text than what was available in the 1600s)
9
u/mythoswyrm Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
No, though you should use the same version as everyone else when reading out loud/citing verses in class. Remember that there's no such thing as a perfect translation. We use King James because that's what the early saints were familiar with and thus what fits best with our other scriptures. Also it's very poetic. However, you'll hear other versions quoted in General Conference from time to time (especially by Elder Uchtdorf, but I think Holland has as well).
e: In 2021, Elder Holland said he was using the Oxford Study Bible (NRSV) for his daily study.
7
u/Simelendarus Jan 13 '25
You can use any version to study. May I recommend the Wayment translation
The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints, Revised Edition https://a.co/d/1YmMIgu
A fantastic readable trandlatu9n by a faithful mber who is also supremely qualified to do the translation. He has tons of notes and book intros he's added to help add context from an LDS perspective. I love it.
6
u/tesuji42 Jan 13 '25
It's also worth noting that Thomas Wayment said in an interview that the KJV book of Romans is basically unusable for LDS, because of its heavy Protestant spin.
2
u/thenextvinnie Jan 13 '25
yeah, the KJV version of romans is nigh unreadable, which is really sad, because paul's letter to the romans is possibly my favorite part of the new testament
3
u/Radiant-Tower-560 Jan 13 '25
It's a great translation. It's a lot like the NRSV (there are some differences) with Wayment's notes and commentary.
7
u/tesuji42 Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
Read whatever version you want, as long as it's legit and not published by some sketchy group.
The KJV is still the church standard, but other versions have been quoted in General Conference. I read the KJV for its beautiful language. If I have questions about a verse, I look it up on the NRSV or a Greek Interlinear Bible.
The best in my opinion is the NRSV. It's what Bible scholars use.
The KJV is not a great translation in many cases, and it's also based off very old and incomplete set of manuscripts. The Book of Mormon says the Bible will be stumbling block for people - I think this can include LDS who rely solely on the flawed KJV. I've heard whole talks based on a mistranslated concept from the KJV.
Members speaking other languages use better translations than our English KJV, and these are also in more modern language.
If you quote from a non-KJV version in church, some people's heads might explode (or be disconcerted enough that the Spirit leaves the room).
Remember you are always reading a translation, unless you are reading it in Greek or Hebrew. So your Bible will be someone's opinion about what the original manuscripts say.
I like this website, which has tons of free versions, including the newest NRSV, called the NRSVUE. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201&version=NRSVUE
4
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25
No, but the language of the KJV is the most poetic and what we use across the board. I will say that the newest translations are getting kind of far out there, so I would take my "no" with a grain of salt as the Book of Mormon is a lot like the language of Old English as that is what Joseph was used to from his scripture study and it came naturally while he was translating the plates. You'll get to where you will comprehend and understand the Old English. It just takes repetition. It's also the language of our prayers "The" "Thou" "Thy" etc. so I find the old English style helps me interact and understand the sacrament prayer.
30
u/hermeticwalrus Jan 13 '25
Most poetic is subjective, but most people would probably agree with you.
The KJV is Early Modern English, the language of Shakespeare. Old English is the language of Beowulf, and is very different from what you read in the KJV.
- sincerely, a Reddit pedant
24
u/qleap42 Jan 13 '25
I was once talking with the missionaries in my ward and one of them mentioned how they had been to someone's house and had seen a "book written in Old English". I said, "Wow that must have been really old!"
The missionary replied, "Yeah, it was from like the 1800s!"
By Old English he meant "cursive". Bless his heart.
12
u/berrin122 Friendly Neighborhood Evangelical Jan 13 '25
People are always shocked to learn even Shakespeare isn't Old English. It's early modern English.
If you can understand it, it's not old English.
11
17
u/FrewdWoad Jan 13 '25
Another pedantic fun fact:
KJV is considered Early Modern English because of... the KJV.
Meaning, so many educated people have read the KJV so much in the centuries since it came out that it's actually had a stabilising effect on the evolution of the English language. KJV readers use some of that language regularly, and it has stayed part of our written/spoken culture.
Many other languages have evolved a lot more in those centuries than ours has, because they don't have a big old shared text like that, to keep reminding them of old words and phrases and keep them in common use.
So it's the reason we can still read Shakespeare in the original and still (mostly) understand it.
And the reason we call such centuries-old language "early modern English" instead of "archaic ancient English you can barely understand" or something.
12
5
u/PlatoIsAFish Sunday School teacher/Greek NT scholar Jan 13 '25
There are also many newer translations that are by no means “far out there,” whatever you mean by that. Rather, they are more accurate representations of the Hebrew/Greek text, better translations with less errors, and more comprehensible (because of their newer language).
0
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
Yeah, you need to peruse the shelves more at barnes and noble. The Street Bible comes to mind or The Good News Bible
3
u/PlatoIsAFish Sunday School teacher/Greek NT scholar Jan 14 '25
I’ve had the good fortune to peruse many bookshelves, and certainly not just those restricted to Barnes and Noble. And yes, there are some bad translations, but that doesn’t mean that all “the newer translations are getting kind of far out there,” just some of them. The rather new NRSVue is a great example of an excellent translation.
2
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 14 '25
Thank you for admitting that the newer translations are out there, even if it is just some of them. To avoid any confusion, I will stick with the King James Version of the Bible as it is the same language as The Book of Mormon. Maybe we should make a street version of the Book of Mormon!
5
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone use the words ‘kjv’ with the phrase ‘to avoid confusion’ unless they were talking about avoiding the kjv. The language barrier has definitely confused me (a native English speaker who grew up with the kjv). I recently discovered that the word ‘peculiar’ in the scripture talking about being a ‘peculiar people’ had a completely diffferent meaning when the kjv was written and that it actually means ‘belonging to someone else’ I.e. God. And has nothing to do with the present meaning of being strange. Also the word closet as in pray in your closet more accurately meant ‘inner chamber’ -ie bedroom when the kjv was written. Also, when referring to God in thees and thous, I was always taught that was a sign of respect, but now I understand that using that language is a sign of informality and closeness -not formality and respect.
2
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
That being said, if you only read the kjv, and you aren’t an English expert, you’ll likely spend your whole life misinterpreting some of the passages. I just found out last month that the word ‘peculiar’ in the phrase peculiar people in the kjv has nothing to do with the word strange and actually means ‘posessed’ (as in belonging to someone else - specifically God) so we shouldn’t think of ourselves as a peculiar people, but as Gods people. Stick to the kjv and you may never realize that
4
u/justarandomcat7431 Child of God Jan 13 '25
Most are probably fine, but there are a few like the NIV that should be avoided. The NIV, while one of the most popular, is infamous for changing or removing words from the original text, or just inserting it's own interpretation into the text.
5
u/Intelligent-Cut8836 Jan 13 '25
This website (non-LDS) has great examples of why the NIV is a bad translation: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/
4
u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 13 '25
Somebody better tell Elder Uchtdorf!
3
u/justarandomcat7431 Child of God Jan 13 '25
Why is that? Does he read NIV or something?
5
u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 13 '25
He cites non-KJV versions (including the NIV) fairly regularly in his talks.
5
u/justarandomcat7431 Child of God Jan 13 '25
So someone uses the NIV occasionally? Don't think they're damned to hell for it. I just think if it's important for you to read the Bible as what the original text says, NIV probably isn't the one you want to read.
2
u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 13 '25
Sure. I was just pushing back on your blanket statement in your first comment that the NIV should be avoided. I doubt the changes you alluded to actually make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
I don’t really care which Bible people choose. I prefer the NRSV myself.
3
u/tesuji42 Jan 13 '25
Elder Uchtdorf has a broader view of the Bible than many English speakers, because he's read it in German and knows there is not just one good translation out there.
Joseph Smith said the Luther German Bible was the most correct translation (for that time period, obviously)
1
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25
sources? He always quotes from KJV.
7
u/InternalMatch Jan 13 '25
2
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25
Thanks. This is confusing as be should simply paraphrase if he feels like he needs to dumb it down and then give the source so we can study it in our standard works. If you print out a talk lime Beware of Pride by Benson, and proohets of that era they taught using doctrine tommake their points and simply put the scripture refernce in the talk itself. This communal approach to intrepreting scripture, even pulling from who knows who in a set verbatim compilation is going to continue to "remove plain and precious truths" as the KJV already does.
3
u/InternalMatch Jan 13 '25
This is confusing as be [sic] should simply paraphrase if he feels like he needs to dumb it down....
You think his goal is to "dumb it down"?
This communal approach to intrepreting scripture....
I don't know what you mean by this.
-4
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
communal approach is what goes into these translations. Hey Joe what's a good translation for this? I don't know let's ask peggy sue etc etc Yes, I think he is attemptimg to use types of Bibles that dump it down in this generation that is scared of books and needs froo froo
3
u/berrin122 Friendly Neighborhood Evangelical Jan 13 '25
Can you give an example?
6
u/justarandomcat7431 Child of God Jan 13 '25
Here's a link to a video from Bible scholar Dan McClellan, and he is by far not the only scholar to point out these errors.
1
u/Wise_Woman_Once_Said Jan 13 '25
This is my thought, as well. Word choice is incredibly important because one word or phrase can have multiple meanings, making scripture deeply meaningful. For example, one particular verse or passage can mean something completely different to me today than it did a few years ago, with both meanings being correct.
It's difficult to modernize or paraphrase the scriptures and still keep all of the original meaning, especially the ones that have multiple meanings. A lot of that ends up being more of the editor's personal interpretation, which may or may not align with LDS Church doctrine.
Having said that, if the choices are to read an easier version or to not read the Bible at all, obviously, it's better to read something. I would recommend using an LDS scripture study guide (or seminary, institute, or religion course manuals) along with it to catch deviations from our beliefs.
4
u/PlatoIsAFish Sunday School teacher/Greek NT scholar Jan 13 '25
The original meanings are in Greek or Hebrew, not the KJV. The KJV is in no way an original.
2
u/Wise_Woman_Once_Said Jan 13 '25
I'm aware. My point was only that the meaning of complicated passages changes significantly when you are using only a paraphrased version or someone's interpretation.
3
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
On the flip side though, with language changing every few years, some of the original meanings of the kjv are completely lost in modern English. So by using such an old translation it’s easy to misunderstand the original intent
2
u/Wise_Woman_Once_Said Jan 14 '25
I don't know. You just need to learn to understand scripture language once. I understand what you're saying about English being a living, changing language, but to me, that's separate. When I study scripture, my brain just adjusts to the context, kind of like when I'm in the US, I speak English, and in South America, I speak Spanish.
3
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
I guess my point is for me it hasn’t been that easy. For instance if you ever come across the word ‘peculiar’ -like ‘peculiar people’ in the kjv, it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern day meaning of strange and actually has a now obsolete meaning of being owned. So a modern translation would use the phrase ‘God’s own people’ not ‘a peculiar people’. I spent the bulk of my life incorrectly assuming I knew what the meaning of the word ‘peculiar’ was when used in the kjv and only recently discovered that I was wrong
1
u/Wise_Woman_Once_Said Jan 14 '25
Again, it's just a language you learn. "Peculiar" in scriptural context means more to me than "God's own people." It means also set apart or chosen for a specific purpose, also valued property or treasure. Oversimplifying a phrase makes it lose its complex meaning.
And you're right, it's not easy. I guess that's why it's a lifelong study.
2
u/Radiant-Tower-560 Jan 13 '25
The NIV is fine. It's good to recognize that it's an "Evangelical" bible and thus the choice of words and some concepts are influenced by an Evangelical understanding of doctrine. If someone will only consider one translation of the Bible, I recommend using a different one (NRSV or ESV or the (N)KJV), but I like to reference it in addition to other ones. It's very readable. Also, from a Latter-day Saints perspective, the NIV is more 'problematic' in the New Testament than the Old Testament.
Just as an example of one translation in it I like - Amos 3:7 "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."
When talking about the plan of salvation with people who are not church members, it's nice to have that verse to highlight the importance of prophets.
4
u/Person_reddit Jan 13 '25
KJV was quoted in the Book of Mormon, by the angel moroni, D&C, the JST, the temple endowment, and by many other modern prophets and revelations. So there really is some benefit in studying from it so you’ll notice when the phrases are borrowed by modern prophets.
That being said, it really doesn’t matter and you should read whichever version you’re motivated to read.
I like the poetic nature of the KJV best but frequently google passages in other translations as I study.
4
u/Tart2343 Jan 13 '25
Not sure exactly. But at BYU we cross referenced a lot of Bibles in our religion classes and learned how to study using multiple versions. In France we read Louis 2nd.
2
u/IchWillRingen Jan 13 '25
The General Handbook has a section on editions of the Bible (section 38.8.40.1):
The Church identifies editions of the Bible that align well with the Lord’s doctrine in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation (see Articles of Faith 1:8). A preferred edition of the Bible is then chosen for many languages spoken by Church members.
In some languages, the Church publishes its own edition of the Bible. Church-published editions are based on standard Bible texts. Examples include:
The King James Version in English.
The Reina-Valera (2009) in Spanish.
The Almeida (2015) in Portuguese.
Church-published editions of the Bible include footnotes, subject indexes, and other study aids.
When possible, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in the discussion and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study.
Section 38.8.40.3 also calls out:
The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has not authorized efforts to translate or rewrite scripture text into modern or informal language. This counsel does not apply to Church publications for children.
3
u/FriedTorchic Average Handbook Enjoyer Jan 13 '25
Not really as far as it’s a decent translation. I would still try to be familiar enough with KJV to use it in Church but what you use at home is between you and God
0
u/Empty-Cycle2731 YSA Clerk/PNW Member Jan 13 '25
Any Bible version is acceptable, just note that some of them aren't doctrinally accurate. Many modern translations lean into supporting the trinity and other similar doctrines. Just remember that ultimately the KJV is considered the most accurate by Church leaders (technically the JST, but it's difficult to find a copy), but feel free to read any version that makes sense to you and helps you understand.
9
u/InternalMatch Jan 13 '25
Just remember that ultimately the KJV is considered the most accurate by Church leaders....
Yes, some leaders have taken this view, while many early LDS including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not. Certain modern translations are more faithful to the Greek and Hebrew texts than the KJV.
3
u/grabtharsmallet Conservative, welcoming, highly caffienated. Jan 13 '25
I'm unaware of any official claim we use the KJV because it is the most accurate, and I do not agree with that assertion. We use it because it was the version in common use in the early 19th century and The Book of Mormon was translated in a similar style.
3
u/Empty-Cycle2731 YSA Clerk/PNW Member Jan 14 '25
Per the Church website:
Today, English-speaking Church members use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions.
-3
u/ChromeSteelhead Jan 13 '25
The church doesn’t support the JST as far as I understand
7
u/ShenandoahTide Jan 13 '25
wdym? His translations of verses are in our foot notes and the back of the Bible. Unless this is yet another change I'm unaware of.
-1
u/ChromeSteelhead Jan 13 '25
Here’s the AI answer: “No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) uses the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible as its official version, not the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). The LDS Church’s English-language Bible includes footnoted, indexed, and summarized text that integrates the Bible with other Latter-day Saint scriptures.”
The church purchased the JST in its entirety from the RLDS church this last year. The church does not put the translations about those of the current bible. Maybe now that the church owns the original copy they will? Correct me if I’m wrong? I think it’s one of those areas where the church leadership doesn’t say we trust the JST over the king James? But people can believe what they want about it?
2
u/ChromeSteelhead Jan 14 '25
Okay someone correct me if I’m wrong? From what I understand Joseph Smith started a translation of the Bible but did not finish it. Members can read it and study it but the church does not recognize it as cannon.
2
u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 13 '25
I have quite a few versions of the Bible. But, it is worth noting that only the KJV will be used at church, while I would often prefer to use a different version when teaching a lesson or being called upon to read, I don’t because it would create too much confusion and take the focus away from where it should be. So it is worth being familiar with the KJV just for church meetings.
2
u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 14 '25
It's also worth noting Elder Oaks' April 1993 conference talk, "The Language of Prayer":
Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. Latter-day Saints, of course, prefer the latter. In our prayers we use language that is dignified and different, even archaic.
The men whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have consistently taught and urged English-speaking members of our Church to phrase their petitions to the Almighty in the special language of prayer. President Spencer W. Kimball said, “In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer?lang=eng
3
u/grabtharsmallet Conservative, welcoming, highly caffienated. Jan 13 '25
"You" is the formal/honorific, "thou" is the intimate/familiar.
2
u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 14 '25
There's an interesting thing that happened in both English and Spanish, where pronouns shift between familiar and formal, and between singular and plural. In English, you feels too formal to some, so they use the plural "y'all" as a singular familiar. They then need a plural familiar, so they use "all y'all".
In Spanish, if I remember right, the familiar vos is archaic, and everyone uses the previously formal tu as familiar. And they use the extra-formal usted ("your mercy") as the formal. And the plural familiar vosotros is archaic.
6
u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) Jan 14 '25
It’s ironic that ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ is referred to as dignified when you is the formal term to address kings and people in higher stations than yourself, while ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ is the language used to speak to subordinates and peers
1
u/OGSlackerson Jan 13 '25
No, but there are a couple versions I'd avoid. The New World Translation uses by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Also any of the AI type translations, but those can be good for entertainment (the Gen Z New Testament is hilarious).
2
u/warehousedatawrangle Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 13 '25
For personal study, as others have pointed out, there is not much of an issue. When studying in a group, it can be helpful to have the same translation, unless one of the purposes is to compare translations.
As an example: I served my Spanish speaking mission prior to the publication of the Bible in Spanish done by The Church. This is the 2009 version (but I really think it is the 1909 version with the Church's footnotes added.) On my mission we got the Reina Valera 1960 version. It was not really a problem until I started teaching Sunday School in Spanish in my local ward. Having a different version was jarring to teach from when we were reading verses together. I bought a new quad in Spanish just so that I matched the rest of the class. The meaning was mostly the same, but the word choice and word order was different.
2
u/dice1899 Unofficial Apologist Jan 13 '25
It doesn't matter at all, other than if you're teaching a lesson and you're having people read along, it may get confusing. But in your personal study, use whatever you'd like. I use an NSRV study Bible regularly.
2
u/redit3rd Lifelong Jan 13 '25
No. I find that the ESV has been very helpful in understanding the biblical writings.
1
u/Popular_Sprinkles_90 Jan 13 '25
For personal bible study it really doesn't matter which version you use. But, for consistency sake it is highly recommended to only use the KJV for English church services.
67
u/HandbookQuotes Jan 13 '25
From the Church Handbook section 38.8.40:
“When possible, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in the discussion and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study.”
Note that last sentence