LDS Freedom Forum

Deep thought.
In church talks, educational lectures, books, etc., people, including General Authorities, are always going back to the Greek or the Hebrew for Bible words. They talk about the meanings, and then use those meanings to impart greater understanding of the truths being taught.

At first I was like, “Why is that even necessary if it’s translated correctly already?” Then I quickly remembered that, duh, it isn’t.

But then I was like, "Why are we still using the KJV at all, when better translations (like the JST) exist, and when we need to consult the ancient Greek or Hebrew words?" If we have to appeal to those languages to understand what we’re reading, shouldn’t that be our “sign” that we need a new official version?

Trying to answer my own question, I figured that maybe one of our main concerns is that we use the same version as most investigators of the church use. But, isn't the #1 selling Bible today the NIV (at least it was a couple years ago)?

I often wonder if one of the forthcoming changes is either finally officially adopting the JST as our Bible version, or adding it in to a new version our own General Authorities create, with the help of scholars both within and without the church.

Imagine that! A new latter-day saint bible that folds in the JST without fail, but also appeals to the ancient and creates a modern version with all those aspects considered.

I mean, I'd do the project myself, but I barely have the time to provide for my family as it is. Also, I don't know Greek or Hebrew....so there's that.

Anyone have any insights to this? Do you think we'll stick with the KJV till kingdom come?

Translation necessitates sacrifice: focusing on one aspect forces the blurring of other aspects. Translations that are "better" than the KJV sacrifice something--usually beauty for accuracy.

The KJV has many strengths but also errors. And although the JST is vitally important, it's not the be-all and end-all--it could be translated even more correctly.

From a scholarly perspective, no original manuscripts are known, only later copies, each of varying quality. But from a prophetic perspective, revelation could make up the difference.

So, if a new translation were done by one with authority, it might be done similarly to the JST, which, in addition to containing revelation (spoiler alert), the JST has also been shown to have portions derived from the Adam Clarke Commentary. Thus, the JST seems to have emerged through prophetic as well as secular processes.

I would suggest checking out:
* The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints, A Study Bible, by Thomas A. Wayment (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1944394672/), and interviews with him about it.
* The Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter, and reviews, such as: https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/article ... symposium/
* Ben Spackman on Bible translations, some referenced here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/about/

In my view, Alter tends to sacrifice the theological for the literary, and Wayment sometimes sacrifices accuracy for tradition. However, Wayment does make some bold departures from tradition, such as in translating James as Jacob, but he only footnotes Judas as Judah.

My ideal translation would be near the KJV, Alter, and Wayment, not to mention contributions of innumerable others, and include essential portions from the JST.

Because the Church has produced its own Bible translations in some languages, it's plausible that an English translation is forthcoming. (I hope that this is one thing to which President Nelson has implied is coming.)