The KJV Bible Sucks [I repented of this]

[Anonymous]

Since this is a giant post, I’ll include a summary:

1. The KJV sucks.

2. I don’t believe “thou” and “thee” and those other words are inherently sacred and there is no compelling need to keep them in scriptures.

3. Many, many passages in the KJV are simply difficult to comprehend and this is not necessary.

4. The KJV includes many errors.

5. Some errors are addressed by the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), but it is largely ignored.

6. Let’s ditch the KJV and make a new bible!

[EDIT: This on page 3:

Shawn wrote:

SamBee wrote:

I don’t think it “sucks” at all. It is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language. In terms of influence upon English – including the colloquial variety – it is more influential than any other work. Even Shakespeare doesn’t come close, and he gave us many popular phrases. I have a book next door which details the large number of phrases which it has given us.

You got me thinking. The KJV Bible is a venerable and valuable work. I really am sorry for saying it sucks. I can be more respectful while advocating for the use of something new.

/EDIT]

I’ve been working on combining the testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John so it reads as one flowing narrative. I thought it would be fairly simple, but the scope keeps creeping. I have been scrutinizing every sentence, comma, semi-colon, and other punctuation marks. I compare the four books to other translations and study various commentaries to be sure I convey the correct meaning as much as possible.

I have learned that THE KING JAMES VERSION SUCKS! I had wondered why we should keep using a book with such archaic language, and why we pray using that language. I read this:

Quote:

The Language of Prayer -DALLIN H. OAKS[/url])[/size]

That made sense to me. Though he was speaking about prayer, it can be appled to scripture. The Spanish language has the following forms of the word “you”:

-Singular informal: tú

-Singular formal: usted

-Plural informal: vosotros

-Plural formal: ustedes

But then I learned this:

Quote:

…distinctions remain in both French (tu/vous) and German (du/Sie). There is an informal “you” that one uses with those one knows, and a more polite, reserved “you” that one uses in other company. Thou and you at some point in Middle English operated the same way. Thou would have been used by those of higher standing addressing those beneath them (such as a master addressing a servant) or commoners addressing one another. You, on the other hand, would have been used by those of lower social standing addressing those above them (such as a child addressing a parent) or by the upper class addressing one another. Thou implied intimacy; you implied a polite reserve…Thou was essentially extinct in standard English usage by the 1700s. One of the main reasons thou survives at all is Tyndale’s translations of the Bible into English in the early sixteenth century. In his translations (for which he was condemned to die at the stake in 1536), Tyndale returned to the simpler convention of Old English, consistently using thou in singular usage and ye in plural usage. As Tyndale’s work became the foundation for the King James version of the Bible in 1611, thou was preserved for posterity.

Ironically, however, the association of thou with Biblical verse and classical literature has completely reversed thou‘s original standing. Thou—when it is used at all—is now viewed as the language of solemn ceremony and formality, while our you is the more colloquial of the two terms. (Thou Pesky “Thou”)

Language always evolves over time, and I can see how “thee” and “thou” may be considered sacred – we have made them sacred; they are not inherently sacred. It is useful to distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, but there has got to be a better way to do that! We have a plethora of books that do not use such archaic language and we don’t seem to have a hard time discerning whether the object being addressed is one person or a group.

Brother Oaks continued:

Quote:

Brothers and sisters, the special language of prayer is much more than an artifact of the translation of the scriptures into English. Its use serves an important, current purpose. We know this because of modern revelations and because of the teachings and examples of modern prophets…

We have scriptural record of three beautiful translated prayers the Savior offered during his earthly ministry. They are models for all of us. Notable in each of these prayers are the words thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours.

In teaching his disciples what we call the Lord’s Prayer, the Savior said, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.”

This is baffling because I believe Brother Oaks is very intelligent and would understand that revelations are filtered through the mind of the receiver. Joseph Smith recorded revelations in biblical language because he was familiar with it and just thought it should be that way. I assume Brother Oaks does not believe Jesus literally said those words. Obviously, Jesus spoke another language and his words were translated (and words like “thou” are used only because Tyndale chose to use them, as noted above). Brother Oaks does acknowledge how the usage of the words have changed and says:

Quote:

But the history of English usage is not the point.

Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.

Maybe he is right about that. I don’t know. But I do think the way we say words makes the difference. We can use a respectful tone when saying “you.”

Unfortunately, “thee” and “thou” are NOT the biggest language stumbling blocks in the KJV, in my opinion. There are phrases that simply don’t make sense. Consider this from Matthew 6:

Quote:

Quote:

[Anonymous]

I’m ignorant about copyright issues so I won’t comment on that much except to speculate that a few lawyers and a little $$$ could solve the issue, maybe cheaper than another version.

While at BYU I had a New Testament class with a professor who required us to use the New International Version (NIV) of the bible. He claimed that the intent of the scriptures was largely unchanged from the KJV but that it was much more understandable. I have to agree – I almost enjoyed reading the NIV bible and thought it was much easier to understand.

[Anonymous]

Hi Shawn,

Shawn wrote:

I don’t see why we stick with the KJV. I suppose it’s just tradition.

Something about “traditions of the fathers” I was surprised in reading the book what happpened to the cross that the author actually lists tradition as a method of confirming church revelation. If it is adopted by the church and stands the test of time then it is divine, if it is dicarded by the church body over multiple generations (Deseret Alphabet, Adam God Theory, Blessings by women for women during childbirth) then it never was.

Shawn wrote:

I am concerned about the trampling of the JST. I have understood that Joseph was commanded to make some important changes to the bible and put a lot of work into doing so, yet those changes are relegated to mere footnotes that are largely ignored.

I believe that JS made changes to bible passages that were confusing and also to make some better fit into current LDS understanding. As a “Translation” it would be a very difficult sell. JS made changes that are not in the ealiest manuscripts and didn’t make changes where the earliest manuscripts have changes.

In important ways the KJV is a beautiful work of literary art.

Finally, I don’t terribly mind the archaic language if that helps get certain people in the right frame of mind. OTOH, if we take the position that our language is better doesn’t that smack of elitism and puffery?

[Anonymous]

I think it is good for Mormons to read other versions of the Bible, since I agree with you that many of them clarify passages that are hard to understand in the KJV. I was disappointed once when I went with my RS to a mission rescue to serve meals, and during the sermon we were asked to attend beforehand, some of the women were making fun of some of the wording in a more modern Bible that was there. I thought the passage they pointed out was fine and made more sense than the more flowery one in the KJV. I guess it just seemed less formal to them or something.

However, I love Isaiah, and I don’t think it sounds as poetic translated into more modern English. I’ve used other Bible’s to understand some of Isaiah, but after that I preferred to go back and read the KJV for the imagery and poetry!

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I’m ignorant about copyright issues so I won’t comment on that much except to speculate that a few lawyers and a little $$$ could solve the issue, maybe cheaper than another version.

Yeah, good point. But then which one would we use?

Roadrunner wrote:

While at BYU I had a New Testament class with a professor who required us to use the New International Version (NIV) of the bible. He claimed that the intent of the scriptures was largely unchanged from the KJV but that it was much more understandable. I have to agree – I almost enjoyed reading the NIV bible and thought it was much easier to understand.

I mostly like the NIV, but I think the English Standard Version (ESV) is more faithfully translated and more accurate. I think the NIV, ESV, and several others are far more enjoyable than the KJV.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot I like in the KJV and a lot that I would rather read in different words. Therefore, I like using multiple versions, taking whatever I like best from each version.

It’s a lot like how I approach Sacrament Meeting and General Conference (along with pretty much all meetings). There will be good and there will be not so good, and sometimes there will be bad. I want to hear multiple speakers to increase the probability that I will hear good stuff at some point, even if that means I also have to endure mediocre and even bad stuff. I can take the best of the meeting(s) and ignore the rest.

[Anonymous]

I’m thinking of starting to use the NIV at church. Just as a minor expression of independence. But I might not. Choose the battles you loose…

As for the Oaks talk telling me how to pray – I ignore it. Why should another man tell me what words I’m allowed to use. What bugs me even more is that the explanation for being told to do this is totally wrong.

[Anonymous]

I have absolutely no problem with people using “thee” and “thou” and such language in prayer. None whatsoever. If it helps them feel more respectful and worshipful, I support it completely. I tend to use that type of wording simply because it is the prayer language of my upbringing, and I am totally fluent in it. It’s easy, familiar and automatic to me.

Having said that, I also use “you” fairly often, especially in my personal, less formal prayers. I tend to use whatever fits my mood and the situation best.

The one thing I dislike intensely about the current model is that it tends to make us notice when the words are used incorrectly, and that tends to lead to some degree of smugness, condescension, pity or some other sentiment that is not good and absolutely not necessary. I understand the basic Primary guidelines to address the Father, thank God, ask for what we need and close in Jesus’ name, but when we start worrying about whether or not the specific words others use are “correct”, we have crossed a line that shouldn’t be anywhere in our sight.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I believe that JS made changes to bible passages that were confusing and also to make some better fit into current LDS understanding. As a “Translation” it would be a very difficult sell. JS made changes that are not in the ealiest manuscripts and didn’t make changes where the earliest manuscripts have changes.

Good points. But to whom would the translation be sold? Why would it need to be sold? It may be that some of the JST is good and some have been superseded. That’s okay. What I don’t like is incorporated it half-way.

Roy wrote:

In important ways the KJV is a beautiful work of literary art.

Sure, we could keep the KJV on a shelf to look at 🙂

Roy wrote:

Finally, I don’t terribly mind the archaic language if that helps get certain people in the right frame of mind. OTOH, if we take the position that our language is better doesn’t that smack of elitism and puffery?

I really enjoy archaic language to a point. I recently read Don Quixote, The Iliad, and Gulliver’s Travels – three of my all-time favorites. I carefully selected the versions to read. I do not want to read modernized versions. For example, I read Edward, Earl of Derby’s 1864 translation of The Iliad (I did, however, change all of the Roman names to the appropriate Greek names).

Quote:

Of Peleus’ son, Achilles, sing, O Muse,

The vengeance, deep and deadly; whence to Grecia

Unnumbered ills arose; which many a soul

Of mighty warriors to the viewless shades

Untimely sent; they on the battle plain

Unburied lay, a prey to rav’ning dogs,

And carrion birds; but so had Zeus decreed,

From that sad day when first in wordy war,

The mighty Agamemnon, King of men,

Confronted stood by Peleus’ godlike son.

Simply beautiful. Newer versions of that fine piece of literature are lame to me.

The KJV is just too archaic. It’s almost like reading Beowulf:

[img]http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/Beowulf.Readings/beo_a_01.gif[/img]

Well, not quite. Seriously, I think the language of the KJV is a roadblock to many, and will become so to more and more LDS folks.

[Anonymous]

I pretty well agree with most of what you said Shawn.

I’ve abandoned the KJV, and use the NIV. IMO, the only advantage and value the KJV has over the NIV, is the poetry.

KJV is great poetry…IMO.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Maybe it’s out there and I don’t know it, but it would seem with modern technology and linguistic skills that there could be an undertaking to newly translate all that we have from the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

I do look at different versions as well, especially when I don’t clearly understand what’s being said in the KJV. I don’t see any harm is having a different view of the scriptures to increase our understanding.

And, I’m one who doesn’t have a problem with thee and thou. If it does help people to feel more respectful and reverent, that’s good. If it doesn’t do anything for you, then don’t do it. It’s like the kneeling in prayer discussion we had a few weeks ago. If you like it, go for it, if you don’t do what you want. I honestly don’t think Heavenly Father cares how we pray to him.

[Anonymous]

Oops, I made a mistake in my original post. It said:

Unfortunately, “thee” and “thou” are the biggest language stumbling blocks in the KJV, in my opinion.

I just changed that to:

Unfortunately, “thee” and “thou” are NOT the biggest language stumbling blocks in the KJV, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

journeygirl wrote:

However, I love Isaiah, and I don’t think it sounds as poetic translated into more modern English. I’ve used other Bible’s to understand some of Isaiah, but after that I preferred to go back and read the KJV for the imagery and poetry!

cwald wrote:

I’ve abandoned the KJV, and use the NIV. IMO, the only advantage and value the KJV has over the NIV, is the poetry.

KJV is great poetry…IMO.

This is interesting to me because I haven’t thought of the KJV as being poetic. Check out this part from Luke 4:

Quote:

KJV:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

NIV:

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

__because he has anointed me

__to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

__and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

__to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

ESV:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

__because he has anointed me

__to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

__and recovering of sight to the blind,

__to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

It really cool that some versions put stuff in poetic verse. I’ve done that with my compilation:

Quote:

KJV:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

__because he hath anointed me

__to preach the gospel to the poor.

He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,

__to preach deliverance to the captives

__and recovering of sight to the blind,

__to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Anyway, if I consider just the words, I definitely see how the KJV is more poetic than the NIV, but I think the ESV maintains the beauty. I’m a fan of the ESV.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have absolutely no problem with people using “thee” and “thou” and such language in prayer. None whatsoever. If it helps them feel more respectful and worshipful, I support it completely. I tend to use that type of wording simply because it is the prayer language of my upbringing, and I am totally fluent in it. It’s easy, familiar and automatic to me.

I agree it’s good if it helps someone feel more respectful and worshipful. For me, the language can be a distraction. I sometimes worry about using proper words – I don’t want to screw up – so I don’t focus as much on the actual heartfelt prayer.

Old-Timer wrote:

The one thing I dislike intensely about the current model is that it tends to make us notice when the words are used incorrectly, and that tends to lead to some degree of smugness, condescension, pity or some other sentiment that is not good and absolutely not necessary. I understand the basic Primary guidelines to address the Father, thank God, ask for what we need and close in Jesus’ name, but when we start worrying about whether or not the specific words others use are “correct”, we have crossed a line that shouldn’t be anywhere in our sight.

Amen to that!

[Anonymous]

I think the point with prayer language is to be respectful while feeling a closeness. At the time the bible prayers were translated into English the more familiar forms were used, should we take that as a model? I wonder what members in other countries are taught to use. Personally I have no problem hearing people use any form they may choose when they pray. I consider myself an eves-dropper on prayers and absolutely have no business inserting my opinions into the conversation between a child and parent.

It is true the KJV has become an article of tradition, I also like to compare other translations and find it puzzling that some members actually frown on reading scriptures when they happen to be another translation. Other languages don’t have the KJV so in the broader view the argument tends to fall apart.

[Author]

Posts