![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (→"Translated correctly"?) |
m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BiblePortal}} | {{BiblePortal}} | ||
− | |||
==Criticism== | ==Criticism== | ||
The Church insists on using the Authorized ("King James") Version as its official Bible, even though more modern translations are easier to read, are more accurate, and include more recent manuscript discoveries. | The Church insists on using the Authorized ("King James") Version as its official Bible, even though more modern translations are easier to read, are more accurate, and include more recent manuscript discoveries. | ||
Line 63: | Line 62: | ||
If this is true, then it is also an argument from silence to speak as though we have a good replica of the original autographs, which consequently do not exist. If this isn't an argument from silence, then from what sound are McKeever and Johnson speaking, if not pure conjecture? | If this is true, then it is also an argument from silence to speak as though we have a good replica of the original autographs, which consequently do not exist. If this isn't an argument from silence, then from what sound are McKeever and Johnson speaking, if not pure conjecture? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Endnotes== | ||
+ | #{{note|26}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101. | ||
+ | #{{note|27}} ''Holy Bible New Living Translation'' (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House, 1996), xvii. | ||
+ | #{{note|28}} Ibid., xv. | ||
+ | #{{note|29}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101. | ||
+ | #{{note|30}} 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (both the KJV and NIV). | ||
+ | #{{note|31}} Ibid., REB and NRSV. | ||
+ | #{{note|mcguire1}} Benjamin McGuire, "The Bible," in "Mormonism 201," reply to chapter 7 of McKeever and Johnson, (FAIR) {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20107.html}}. | ||
+ | #{{note|32}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101. | ||
+ | #{{note|33}} Raymond E. Brown, ''An Introduction to New Testament Christology'' (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1994), 171-195. | ||
+ | #{{note|34}} Ibid. See especially page 195, with footnote 20. | ||
+ | #{{note|35}} Eberhard W. Güting and David L. Mealand, "Asyndeton in Paul: A Text-critical and Statistical Inquiry into Pauline Style," ''Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity'', No. 39 (Mellen, 1998), xiv, 203. | ||
+ | #{{note|36}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101. | ||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== |
Answers portal |
Holy Bible |
![]() |
![]() |
---|
Book of Mormon & Bible: |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Church insists on using the Authorized ("King James") Version as its official Bible, even though more modern translations are easier to read, are more accurate, and include more recent manuscript discoveries.
Critics sometimes complain that the eight Article of Faith about believing the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," implies that Bible translators are trying to hide God's truth.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the Authorized (King James) Version as its official Bible. Some reasons include:
However, there is nothing in Church policy or official Church teaching that forbids Latter-day Saints from reading other Bible translations in their personal study. Many do so.
Critics McKeever and Johnson write of the LDS position:
This is of course only partially correct. Consider, for example, the popular version the New Living Translation. In its introduction we read the following:
A little earlier they admit to a bias within the translation. This translation was prepared by "ninety evangelical scholars…commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible."[3] This is fine if you are an Evangelical, but, if you are not, then the translation shows clear theological preferences in its translation. The King James Version, the New International Version, and all other translations generally come with a theological perspective in the translation of the text. Some are criticized much more than others (like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses). The LDS Church has chosen the King James Version as its official Bible. The reasons for this were twofold. First, it is a well-respected and easily accessible translation (even if a bit dated), and second, it was the only English translation of the Bible available to the early leaders of the LDS Church, and so all of their biblical citations are taken from it.
McKeever and Johnson try to show that by the term translation in the eighth Article of Faith, we really mean transmission. They write:
Said one LDS student of the scriptures:
Is translation important? Clearly it is. Latter-day Saints believe that only by the Spirit of God can we make these determinations. Scholarship often cannot help us answer questions concerning the effect of doctrine on translation, particularly in ancient documents where the source is not available.
Recently, a study was released entitled "Asyndeton in Paul: A Text-critical and Statistical Inquiry into Pauline Style."[9] The authors of the study were working with an ancient rhetorical device called asyndeton, the practice of leaving conjunctions (like the word 'and') out of the text to add impact. It was generally used in oration-an indication that Paul's works were meant to be read aloud. The authors identified more than 600 instances of asyndeton in both epistles to the Corinthians and in the epistle to the Romans. They then tracked these asyndeton through the available manuscript history, and tracked how many were lost when copyists and scribes inadvertently changed the text because they did not recognize the rhetorical device.
The results were fascinating. First, it was clear that the older a manuscript was, the fewer changes could be found. Even more interesting was what they discovered within textual apparatuses available to translators. An apparatus is a combination text with variant readings, used to create the base text from which a translation is made. These include the Nestle-Aland text, the UBS text, and the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmsus from which the King James Version was translated. What they discovered was that even the earliest manuscripts had been modified in more than thirty percent of the instances, while the latest texts had lost as much as fifty to fifty-five percent. The Textus Receptus, as a majority text, had lost almost seventy percent of the instances of asyndeton. The best of the apparatus texts, that used by the UBS, was still worse than the worst of the earliest manuscripts. The authors of the study left the reader to draw their own conclusions.
What this means is that textual criticism of the Bible is still in its infancy. While it brings us closer to the original texts, there are no guarantees, and no way of telling how far we still have to go. Until then, we are in the same situation with regards to an original text as McKeever and Johnson claim of Mormons:
If this is true, then it is also an argument from silence to speak as though we have a good replica of the original autographs, which consequently do not exist. If this isn't an argument from silence, then from what sound are McKeever and Johnson speaking, if not pure conjecture?
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now