this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...
 

is embarrassing.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55

Note, NRSV, finished in 1989 was presumably not studied by the committee that wrote this.

Agree. I am totally embarassed by that.

I recently heard (was it here?) that they are publishing a new edition of the LDS standard works and there will be overhauls of the chapter headings and dictionary.

Didn't Elder McConkie write (or at least oversee the writing of) the Bible Dictionary?

If so, what in there doesn't embarrass you?

to the outside observer this statement says "LDS church leaders are to bible history as the earth is 6000 years old folks are to science."

Heh. Do you know what "outside observers" say about the Book of Mormon?

Lingo's question is a good one.

Yeah, but why give them silly stuff like this that validates their stereotypes and pre-conceived notions?

From the 1998 LDS Church Handbook

Bible

The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. The First Presidency has stated:

[Page 147]

"Many versions of the Bible are available today. ... The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

"While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations" (First Presidency letter, 22 May 1992).

Ideally, English-speaking members should use LDS edition of the King James Bible. This edition includes the Topical Guide, footnotes, other study aids, excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have selected an edition of the Bible for preferred use in many non-English languages. Members should use this Bible. It is available through Church distribution centers.

http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi18.htm

LCD approach. For lingo and Tex, that means lowest common denominator .

I think members who know better are wise not to limit themselves to the KJV. In fact, I venture to say that if you have very good reason to believe one text is better than another, you are under CONDEMNATION for not seeking out that text and studying it.

In fact, if I found out that none of the Seventy owned a non-KJV version of the Bible, I would be very disappointed.

Yeah. We stoopid.

Did the Spirit confirm this to you?

Elder Hales quoted from the NIV in his 1997 Fall General Conference address.

Like I said before, I find it highly ironic that we would turn such a blind eye to textual criticism since the issue of biblical translation errors is one of our articles of faith. You would think we would fully embrace it.

I am highly entertained by Waters pronouncing condemnation on people.

Who's the mullah?

I think there are some legitimate jitters about using textual criticism to analyze scriptures in a way that could have doctrinal impact. It would be tragic if the church were to embrace a version of a scripture based on textual criticism that later ended up being incorrect.

Intepretation of scripture is done via revelation, not academic exploration. I don't think the church opposes the latter, though, as YOhio points out. Just refuses to standardize on it.

The Bible Dictionary was compiled prior to 1989. I'm not sure that this topic alone warrants the printing of a new edition.

But don't we already believe that the bible is imperfect to start with? Why not try to improve it? So what if some mistakes are made along the way? You seem to be saying, "We may not be perfect in our improvements, so let's not try to improve."

It seems an underlying issue may be that we don't dare follow such a path since we may make a mistake and that would indicate that not everything we do is directed by God.

Nonsense. Why not use both? Isn't that how we got the KJV in the first place?

One of the most definitive characteristics of a mullah is that they seem to have no idea what the term means.

And just in case it is not clear: I am speaking of you and not Mike.

Oh, right. I forgot you coined the term.

No chance of you giving me a good definition, eh?

Wow, that was almost like sticking your thumb to your nose with your fingers extended and wiggling and saying "it takes one to know one".

Excellent.

I'm embarrassed that you are embarrassed. This does not seem to be an issue over which one should get worked up.

I appreciate as well as anybody the importance of studying other versions of the bible. I would nevertheless recommend to all that your collective shock and horror would be better reserved for a rainier day than this.

Indy: Exhibit B.

Wow, you got me there.

No, no, no. I'm pretty sure that was goatnapper. More evidence of his genius.

Mmmm, no, I think there's just an aversion to using man-made processes to interpret the divine. Joseph Smith spent time studying other languages and versions to understand the Bible, but when he created the JST it was by revelation and revelation alone.

That's not to stay his studies didn't enlighten his mind, but he didn't claim the changes were made due to textual criticism.

Moreover, the rejection of publishing the JST as our standard (or something JST-like ... perhaps a fresh revision by the current prophet?) in this thread is pretty telling, IMO:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11192

Quite simply, I think there are some sound logistical reasons. It's hard enough to get members to study their scriptures as it is. You really think outside of Cougarguard "intelligentsia" that the bulk of the church is going to acquire and study multiple versions?

In case anyone's curious, I just checked and this language did not change in the 2006 version of the handbook.

I knew that the bible dictionary was completed before 1989. Was it around 1981 or so?

by the way, Tex, I think it's pretty safe to say, that practically speaking, the church has rejected the JST.

Whether for practical reasons (so that we don't have a "different" Bible) or for other reasons, I don't know.

well regardless of how you feel about other translations, I can tell you that Misquoting Jesus has really made me skeptical of the KJV. I grimace when I read quotes from general authorities justifying practices and beliefs using verses that, by all reasonable historical research, didn't exist.

I think when they do so, it is reasonable, and always there is a valuable point that is consistent with how I view the gospel (for example, I believe fasting is good, even if that phrase about fasting was never spoken by Jesus when casting out the evil spirits).

I'll probably never buy a quad again. I'll get a triple and take the NRSV. I'll keep my KJV for backup, because it is familiar and the topical guide and the like. There are times, for example, if you were reading the story of Christ's birth at Christmas, the KJV might be preferable.

What's the problem with misquoting? When Jesus quoted the scriptures, he quoted the Septuagint, which had incorrect translations from the Hebrew Bible.

would you be bothered if in the new Bible Dictionary this statement about the KJV were taken out?

Likewise, it's not a big deal when the BofM cites biblical verses in the KJV. Just like the Jews in Jesus' time who used the Septuagint, the KJV is what was used in Joseph Smith's time. That doesn't mean there is no value today in studying other translations based on better source materials than were available to the KJV translators. And as far as the KJV being more doctrinally accurate, I could probably find dozens of verses in the NRSV that fit better with LDS doctrine than their counterpart from the KJV. The baptism for the dead scripture in 1 Cor. 15 being one of them.

Sorry, I meant to say skeptical of the KJV, not the JST.

You seem to be saying "We don't need to study the hundreds (thousands) of ancient Greek manuscripts that have been discovered that pre-date those used by the translators of the KJV. If we need to learn anything about the bible, we will just rely on revelation." That's just nuts. And I don't believe that is how God operates. He expects us to use our heads.

Don't you find any irony in using this argument to defend a document (KJV) that was translated entirely by non-LDS scholars hundreds of years ago? Translators who were relying on ancient texts and were doing their duty in an attempt to improve on previous translations? Or do you believe that the KJV translators alone were inspired but all of the others were not?

Tex, it is amazing what lengths you will go to in order to defend the status quo on EVERYTHING.

Who says the bulk of the church has to do it? I am just saying that the church should be more anxious than anyone to study old Greek manuscripts in order to improve the translation. Rather than doggedly clinging to the such a relatively bad translation.

Not at all.

Why? Your question seems to come out of nowhere.

john 4:24 NIV has "God is spirit" instead of "God is a spirit"

Tex is like some kind of a cyborg. I am starting to appreciate the genius of his relentless, picture perfect, unerring, undeviating defense of LDS status quo. He's Boyd K. Packer's cyborg assassin. He's probably all over the Internet and off and on in your Gospel Doctrine classes. Lebowski, Waters, the rest of you progressives, give up. Either bow to Tex or get the hell out. It's like trying to play chess with a computer. He'll finally ground you to dust, after you thought you had him over and over again.

Screw the NIV. I've got "Kata Iohannen" right in front of me and verse 24 says "pneuma ho theos."

Talk of which English translation is best is a tallest midget contest. Maybe we stick with the KJV because, ultimately, every English translation sucks and at least the KJV is poetic.

Why I favor the King James Version
 

When readers who love the Iliad or the Aeneid compare translations, fidelity to the ancient Greek or Latin is only of passing interest. What matters is the beauty of the poetry. I'm a hold out for the KJV because I think it's the most moving of all the versions, at least for me. Certainly, I think, it's the superior work of art which is what matters to me. As Harold Bloom has noted, there is not much resemblance between Christianity as we know it and the original Hebrew monotheism, and from my perspective fealty to the original text is not the first priority. There is nothing wrong with Christianity developing a Bible that is Christianity's own artifact. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor to have versions that purport to be faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek. But these are not likely to be the most beautiful or moving or enduring. English has its own rythms. Needless to say, versions of the Iliad that just literally trot out what is said in the Greek are not the most beloved. They are academic exercises. How else is verse achieved except by a poet employing his craft as he "translates"?

Perhaps not a big deal, but Jesus did not quote (exclusively, at least) from Septuagint writings. Instead, the writers of the gospels who recorded Jesus' words quoted from them. Jesus seems to have access - in the synagogues, at least - to scrolls in Hebrew (e.g. Luke 4.16-17).

I've never heard Bloom wax poetic about anything in the New Testament.

And it is the New Testament, not the Old Testament, translations that are controversial, and more important in terms of doctrine.