Is it okay to use other Bible translations? Yes, and you probably should
Is it okay to use other Bible translations? Yes, and you probably should
The King James Version is official version used in the Church, but there's a lot to be learned from other, more modern translations.
When I was a missionary, I often shared a spiritual thought when visiting someone’s home. A go-to for me was a scripture story from the New Testament, where Jesus’s disciples were unable to cast a devil out of a young man. The Savior’s bit of instruction to them, which was the crux of my spiritual thought, was that some challenges we face require a little extra spiritual effort:
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Given how many times I shared this spiritual thought, imagine my surprise when I found out that this verse doesn’t even exist in most modern Bibles.
Yeah, that’s right. I found this out when I was reading a modern translation, and that verse just wasn’t there. The story just ended, without the punchline I’d delivered so many times as a spiritual thought. Check out the screenshot above—this is from biblestudytools.com, which doesn’t even list verse 21 at all. It turns out this is one of sixteen verses that are generally considered to be “extra” in the King James Version.
Now, I’m not a scholar. I’m not in any position to debate Biblical scholarship, and I might get some details wrong. But I can say, independent of any level of education or expertise, that exploring other translations of the Bible has enhanced my scripture study.
In some cases, Bible verses and stories become easier to understand, because the language is simpler and more familiar. Most translations I’ve looked at also format the text differently—in paragraphs, mostly, but also poetry is formatted like poetry, etc.—which makes things easier and faster to read.
But the biggest benefit for me is that it’s different. Reading the same verses, written differently, jolts me out of my comfort zone and compels me to read more deeply and understand more fully. If you’ve ever been reading the scriptures and started to glaze over a little bit, because you’ve read the same verses so many times, you should try a different translation. If you’re like me, you’ll see the text in a whole new light.
Take, for instance, this familiar verse from Ephesians 4 that recently showed up in the Come Follow Me study. This is the King James Version:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
And this is a newer translation:
14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming;
It’s not a huge difference between the two. But the second one does read a little bit differently than the first—enough to keep me from being glazed over by its familiarity. I love Paul’s directness here, saying that “we must no longer be children.” It’s different from the KJV, and it’s fresh.
This example is from my favorite translation, the NRSVue— the “New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition,” which is a terribly complex name for a well-regarded Bible translation. Feel free to try others and find one you like. This is just the one that makes the most sense to me when I read it.
What’s wrong with the King James Version?
Mostly, it’s just old.
This was a significant insight for me, because I would have thought that older is better (wouldn’t that mean it’s closer—at least temporally—to the original writing?). But the problem is not that it was translated/revised a long time ago, the problem is that the English it’s written in is old. English has evolved and changed a lot since 1611, when the KJV was first published.
For a great example of how changes in the English language have obscured intended meanings in the KJV, consider this example from LDS Bible scholar Dan McClellan. He cites a specific verse in Jude that goes from this, in the KJV:
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
to this, in the NRSVue:
22 And have mercy on some who are wavering;
The difference is pretty substantial. The former seems to talk about how we can make change in someone’s life by having compassion, whereas the latter is about having mercy on those whose testimonies are in flux—two very different meanings, from the same verse! The video below is cued up to Dan’s explanation of how this verse changes, and why the resulting meaning is so different:
Ultimately, the difference in modern translations is not just a matter of thees and thous and -eths; the meanings of many words and idioms have changed in the last 400 years.
In other words, you can learn all the archaic terms and phrases used in the KJV—you can learn what words like ambassage, amerce, collop, concupiscence, felloe, neesings, purtenance, and wimples mean—or you can read a version where they’ve already been translated into words we use in English today. The choice is entirely yours.
Incidentally, Dan also has much harsher things to say about the KJV:
I'm frequently asked about the King James Version as a translation, and I generally don't recommend it. It is most valuable as an artifact of the English language, but as a translation, it is based on inferior manuscripts. Its translation philosophy is far too literal and awkward, and it is phenomenally outdated. And so it is very difficult to understand, and folks who believe that they understand it well enough, don't.
This isn’t to say that the KJV is inherently bad, of course. For a counterpoint, you can turn to J. Reuben Clark, who gave an esoteric and impassioned defense of the KJV in a General Conference talk in 1954. But if the question is whether there are translations that use more and better sources, or use more familiar and modern English—I don’t think there’s anything wrong with answering yes.
To be totally clear, I love the King James Version. There’s something poetic about it. I think in a lot of ways we’ve come to recognize its Early Modern English as the universal language of scripture, and I have to assume that’s why the Book of Mormon is written in the same way.
What’s the Church’s official policy?
There’s a sense in some cultural Church circles that using other Bible translations is culturally taboo, or even borderline heretical. Some people might find the former to be true, but the latter isn’t.
The Church addresses the question of Bible translations directly in the General Handbook. Here’s the relevant part:
When possible, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in the discussion and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study.
It makes sense that the Church has a standard Bible, so that in talks and lessons we’re all reading from the same text. It also makes sense that, as a Church restored in the early- to mid-1800s, the King James Version became the standard, probably more by default than anything else. Many of the translations in common use today, such as the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NRSV/NRSVue, were all published in the 1970s or later.
But don’t miss that last sentence from the Church Handbook excerpt above, which specifically rubber stamps the use of other Bible editions for personal study. There is nothing here that says other translations are off-limits; in fact, quite the opposite. If other translations can add to your study the way they have added to mine, then the Church encourages you to jump right in. I recommend it.
Don’t forget, also, that in all of this we’re only talking about English—and the Church doesn’t necessarily use the KJV in other languages. For example, the Bibles published by the Church in Spanish and Portuguese are the Reina-Valera translation and the Almeida translation, respectively. Both of these originate from the Textus Receptus, like the KJV, but aren’t translations of the KJV itself (publication of the Reina-Valera translation actually predates the KJV by nine years). In many other languages, other translations and versions are used in the Church. So while the KJV is the Bible we use in Church meetings in English, it’s not the only “true” or “acceptable” version.
So, what now?
For Bible translations, as in other things, “You will know them by their fruits.” As Latter-day Saints we sometimes lack the Bible familiarity and knowledge that our fellow Christians have, because we also spend time with the other Standard Works. If using a translation other than the King James Version helps you understand and feel the messages of the Bible more deeply, then those are good fruits. If your testimony is strengthened because you’re being taught by the Spirit through the Bible text, then you can know that what you’re doing is right.
The Bible wasn’t given to us to be hard to understand, and difficult to negotiate. Instead, as Paul says so clearly in the NRSVue, it’s here to give us hope:
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.