Anthropomorphism

George Ernest Wright



Edmond La B. Cherbonnier

In Defense of Anthropomorphism

The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism

LDS Websites

FAIR

Mormon Archipelago

Mormanity, blog by Jeff Lindsay

LDS FAQs, by Jeff Lindsay

Mormon Think Tank, Kevin Graham

Blake Ostler

Mormon Miscellaneous, podcast by Van Hale

The King James Only Controversy

Here is a controversy of which members of the LDS church are largely oblivious: The King James Only Controversy.

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
Bethany House (March 1, 1995)
James White

Here is a website which promotes the KJO position: The King James Bible Page

One handy feature at this website is the online dictionary of King James Version words.

Below I have provided a quote from the site that promotes the KJO position.

"The vast majority of Christians are unaware that there exists a significant difference between the KJV and Bible versions published in the last 100 years -- a difference of doctrine and authority, not one of mere dialect. They are told that the KJV is antiquated, hard to understand, and inaccurate.

The King James Bible Page aims to set the record straight: the KJV is God's word in English, accurately translated from manuscripts preserved by God throughout history. Modern versions of the Bible, on the other hand, are translations of manuscripts that have been transmitted in a secular form throughout history, tainted by liberal, un-believing scholarship as early as the days Paul began penning Holy Scripture under the inspiration of God.

In many cases modern translations, such as the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and so many others, simply delete verses equivalent in quantity to the entire book of Second Peter. Learn about the history of the Bible, the value of the KJV, and the problems of academic seduction surrounding modern Christian scholarship, and arm yourself with the pure, trustworthy words of God.

One one the most significant failings of the Church today is a lack of final authority in Scripture. Anyone who is willing to correct the Bible is willing to put himself over the authority of the Bible. Every Christian should learn about this issue and understand that the Bible, not a man, is the final authority by which all spiritual matters must be judged. This is impossible when you do not believe the Bible in your hands is the pure, unadulterated word of God!"

Wikipedia has a rather long and in depth article on the King James Only Movement.

Just to clarify, I've posted the above out of an interest in learning about the beliefs of the traditional christian community, not that I support those ideas!

My interest, and that of other members of the LDS church is explained in my post KJV Bible as the LDS Authorized Version

KJV Bible as the LDS Authorized Version

Given my recent interest of textual criticism of the Bible, I was wondering about the history of the LDS church's use of the KJV. Given the modern English translations based on better Greek translations that are now available, one would think the LDS church would be the first to make use of them.

I've been doing a bit of Googling research with the following results thus far:

Of course, the following is a good starting point for the official position of the LDS church:

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible
“News of the Church,” Ensign, Aug. 1992, 80

"Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. 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. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments."

Sincerely your brethren,
Ezra Taft Benson
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas S. Monson

There are many understandable reasons given for continued use of the KJV, one important reason being:

"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."

This makes sense given that:

"Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version."

Do modern English versions of the Bible, based on more accurate Greek versions, change any doctrine? Most traditional Christians say no. Traditional Christians have the anchor of their traditions to help them maintain their current beliefs. As stated above by the First Presidency, Mormons have the anchor of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and most importantly, modern prophets and apostles.

I think the above statement can be easily read to say that while the KJV of the Bible will continue to be the official version of the Bible of the LDS church, there is no restriction on using modern English version of the Bible based on better Greek translations. In fact, the First Presidency points out that the modern English versions may be easier to read than the KJV.

"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."

When deciding on a modern English version of the Bible, the important thing to know is that while the Greek text may be more accurate, the modern English translation is going to have some biases based on the theological and social views of the translators. So determining what those biases are is going to be important.

Here are some more LDS references that I thought were informative and interesting:

I recommend reading the following, as it by an institute teacher, and many other instructors comment with useful suggestions and information about using modern English versions of the Bible.

The KJV: A Sealed Book?
by Julie M. Smith, "Times and Seasons" blog
4/20/2006

The following article has some informative history regarding the LDS use of the KJV.

Little Less than God
by Kevin Barney, "By Common Consent" blog
4/26/2006

Why the King James Version
J. Reuben Clark
Deseret Book Co (1956)

Mormons and the Bible
The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion
By Philip L. Barlow
Oxford University Press, USA (February 27, 1997)

Google Books with info and preview

Review by Marvin Folsom at Maxwell Institute website

Review by Art Bassett at Sunstone Magazine website

12 Answers from Philip Barlow: Part 1
Philip L. Barlow answers questions regarding the LDS use of the KJV
"Times and Seasons" blog, 3/6/2005

Modern History of Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament

One of the things I liked about "Misquoting Jesus" is chapter 4, entitled "The Quest for Origins, Methods and Discoveries", which introduces the history of modern New Testament textual criticism. In this post, I will mention some of the names from chapter 4.


One thing to keep in mind is that these scholars often had agendas. Catholic scholars might try to make the case that the written word cannot be relied upon, but that the interpretation of the books required the apostolic tradition handed down by the Catholic church. Protestants made the opposing case, that of sola scriptura, i.e. the book speaks for itself and does not require any traditions to interpret it.

John Mill (1645-1707, England)
Greek New Testament, 1707
published with indications of 30,000 variants


Richard Simon (1638-1712, France)

"A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament", 1689




Richard Bentley (1662-1742, England)



Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752, Germany)



Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693-1754)



Karl Lachmann (1793-1851, German)



Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874)



Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901, England)


Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)

"The New Testament in the Original Greek" (1881)

The Johannine Comma

"The Johannine Comma, also referred to as the Comma Johanneum, is a comma (a short clause) known since the 4th century and contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):"

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Should be:

7 For there are three that bear record:
8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.

"The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and for this reason some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early Church Fathers, who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the Arians), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John."

You would never believe two verses of scripture could involve so much history, over so many centuries! To learn more about the Johannine Comma, I suggest reading the article at Wikipedia or the following article by Marc A. Schindler:

The Johannine Comma: Bad Translation, Bad Theology

And just in case you think everyone agrees that the Johannine Comma is not original, read some of the links provide by Google!

Book: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman

I just finished reading "Misquoting Jesus", subtitled "The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman.

As someone who loves history, I am quite happy with this introduction to textual criticism of the New Testament. Ehrman doesn't just discuss the textual variants found in the many manuscripts of the New Testament, he provides a historical context for the variants. These are presented in two general classes, unintentional variants and intentional variants. He begins with the types of unintentional variants, i.e. scribal errors, etc., and progresses to intentional variants, i.e. changes made for theological or social reasons. For each type of variant he discusses, he provides a historical context to give a reason for the variant in the New Testament text. He points out several times that textual criticism is not always an exact science, that given the same facts, different scholars can and do come to different conclusions. However, it would also seem that consensus is reached on the best version of many variants.

Ehrman does a good job providing a history of the New Testament, but equally as interesting to me was his introductory history of New Testament textual criticism. He also explains some of the techniques used by scholars engaged in textual criticism. This includes the effort of collecting manuscripts through the last 300 years. It also includes the use of non-manuscript sources such as New Testament quotes by early church fathers. Apparently so much of the New Testament is quoted that it can virtually be reconstructed from such sources. The useful thing about using such sources is it puts a time and place to the New Testament quote.

While many disciples of Jesus Christ feel threatened by textual criticism of the New Testament, Ehrman points out that it was scholars engaging in textual criticism that have given us every version of the New Testament in English we have, including the King James Version.

Some critics of textual criticism attempt to argue that textual variants in the New Testament are all insignificant. However, Ehrman points out that this is far from true. He provides several examples of intentional changes made to promote or diminish certain theological beliefs.

This takes us far afield from the infalliable and inerrant Bible of days gone by. Some traditional christians take offense at the LDS 8th Article of Faith when it states:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

In light of the textual criticism of the New Testament going on over the last 300 years, it would appear their offense is misguided.

Some critics of the Book of Mormon point to the "many changes" made to the text over the years. If they only knew how much more those arguments apply to the New Testament!