What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Christian Bible Origins (brief history)

C

CDF

Guest
The following is a compiled list of the origins of the Christian Bible, and with regard to the version, which major resources were used for the translation. I am not going to list ALL of the translations, just the most widely used/accepted.

King James Version
New Testament: Textus Receptus (received text - 16th century AD)
Old Testament: Masoretic Hebrew Text, Septuagint

New Amercian Standard Version
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint

English Standard Version*
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint

New Revised Standard Version*
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls

Holman Christian Standard Bible
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint

New English Translation
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint

New Jerusalem Bible*
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint

New International Version
New Testament: Novum Testamentum Graece
Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Septuagint, Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, Juxta Hebraica

*Apocrypha books were resourced from the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, & Juxta Hebraica.

Note: the Dead Sea Scrolls greatly support the Greek Septuagint, both of which are believed to be the oldest documents for the Old Testament. At the time of the KJV (1611 AD), only a limited number of documents were available to be used as a resource, hence the changes in the last 400 years.

What does all this mean? That depends on your reading ability and how well you understand literal translations, paraphrasing, and having an open mind.

Any questions? :confused

If anyone really wants them, I can give appx. dates for the above listed texts. :gah
 
John Wycliffe's Translation ( 1380-82 )
William Tyndale's New Testament ( 1526 )
Miles Coverdale's Bible ( 1535 )
Matthew's Bible ( 1500-1555 )
The Great Bible ( 1539 )
The Geneva Version ( 1560 )
The Bishops' Bible ( 1568 )
The King James Version ( 1611 )

Anything after this isn't worth the paper it's printed on. For proof of this, read the following.
http://www.theunworthyservant.com/why-the-kjv.html
 
TheUnworthyServant said:
John Wycliffe's Translation ( 1380-82 )
William Tyndale's New Testament ( 1526 )
Miles Coverdale's Bible ( 1535 )
Matthew's Bible ( 1500-1555 )
The Great Bible ( 1539 )
The Geneva Version ( 1560 )
The Bishops' Bible ( 1568 )
The King James Version ( 1611 )

Anything after this isn't worthy the paper it's printed on. For proof of this, read the following.
http://www.theunworthyservant.com/why-the-kjv.html
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree seeing as the amount of resources now in a wider variety of texts that can be taken from would make newer translations more accurate I would think. Personally, I've read enough translations to know that they are all 'good' it's just a matter of some making the translations clearer and using various translations can bring you to a better understanding. Personally, I read NIV mainly I also have a KJV and NKJV and I research other translations online. Check out Isaac Newton's 'Two notable corruptions' in regards to the KJV(1611), it might change your mind. I'm unfamiliar with the other translations you quoted other than by name.

cheers
 
I don't believe the "newer" translations are any more accurate. I do like my NKJV and MKJV, but notice they both contain a K and a J. :lol

I would add to the OP these two items:

The YLT and Robert Young's resources

and

the fact that the KJV relied somewhat on the Vulgate.
 
seekandlisten said:
I would have to disagree seeing as the amount of resources now in a wider variety of texts that can be taken from would make newer translations more accurate I would think. Personally, I've read enough translations to know that they are all 'good' it's just a matter of some making the translations clearer and using various translations can bring you to a better understanding. Personally, I read NIV mainly I also have a KJV and NKJV and I research other translations online. Check out Isaac Newton's 'Two notable corruptions' in regards to the KJV(1611), it might change your mind. I'm unfamiliar with the other translations you quoted other than by name.

cheers
Click to expand...

Newton was a brilliant mind and a true believer to be sure, but when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures and the original languages. (Hebrew and Greek) He pales in comparison to the knowledge of the individuals who help create the KJV-1611. Here are a few.

Lancelot Andrews: " As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star of preachers. Dr Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer. But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a 'right godly man' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning'! It was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.' A brave old chronicler remarks that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages. "

John Overall: He was chosen for his expertise in the writings of the early church fathers. " Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers. "

Robert Tighe: " An excellent textuary and profound linguist. "

William Bedwell: " An eminent Oriental scholar. His epitaph mentions that he was 'for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.' "

Edward Lively: " One of the best linguists in the world. Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages. "

Lawrence Chaderton: " He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Dr Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows: 'Having addressed his audience for full two hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with one consent 'For God's sake, go on!' "

Francis Dillingham: " Was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debates in Greek. "

Thomas Harrison: Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge. " On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought to be professors of these languages. "

John Harding: " At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. "

John Reynolds: " Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original languages and read all the Greek and Latin fathers. And all the ancient records of the Church. "

Dr. Henry Saville: " Was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled in languages and knowledge of the Word. That he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. "

Dr. Miles Smith: " The man responsible for the preface of the King James Bible. The preface is no longer printed in present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of Greek and Latin fathers. As well as being an expert in Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. 'Hebrew he had at his finger's end.' And so was the Ethiopic tongue. "

" It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers, which prevented them from being 'locked' to the manuscripts, causing earlier readings to be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators. It should also be recognized that these men did not live in 'ivory towers.' They were men who were just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in humility to see such men of great spiritual stature call themselves 'poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known.' "

William Grady backs up this evidence: " The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives. William John Bois was only five years old, when his father taught him to read Hebrew. By the time he was six, he could not only write the same but in a fair and elegant character. At age fifteen, he was already a student at St John's College, Cambridge, where he was renowned for corresponding with his superiors in Greek. "
 
TheUnworthyServant said:
seekandlisten said:
I would have to disagree seeing as the amount of resources now in a wider variety of texts that can be taken from would make newer translations more accurate I would think. Personally, I've read enough translations to know that they are all 'good' it's just a matter of some making the translations clearer and using various translations can bring you to a better understanding. Personally, I read NIV mainly I also have a KJV and NKJV and I research other translations online. Check out Isaac Newton's 'Two notable corruptions' in regards to the KJV(1611), it might change your mind. I'm unfamiliar with the other translations you quoted other than by name.

cheers
Click to expand...

Newton was a brilliant mind and a true believer to be sure, but when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures and the original languages. (Hebrew and Greek) He pales in comparison to the knowledge of the individuals who help create the KJV-1611. Here are a few.
Click to expand...

Can I ask if you looked into Newton's 'Two notable corruptions'? It's in regards to 1 John 5:7 and to a lesser extent 1 Timothy 3:16. It is widely acknowledged that 1 John 5:7 was added/altered as it appears in the KJV in promotion of the trinity doctrine.

I'm not saying these translations are wrong just to be wary in making 'absolute' claims with them. I am quite familiar with the KJV yet I prefer the NIV for my main reading but like I said earlier in order to 'grasp' a meaning I may look online at several versions. I'm not here to argue the translation that you use. There are a wide variety of opinions on the 'correct' translation. 'God's Word' is 'alive' and 'active' so 'It' is more than just 'words on a page'.
 
Geo said:
NIV : 64,000 exact words of God deleted. Could this be a problem?
Click to expand...

I would say most definitely. I do not understand why so many people continue to ignore these verses.
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
 
People are not ignoring the verses. In the time of the 1611 KJV, scholars wrote expressively during the Renaissance, ie like Shakespeare. The language was poetic, if not perfectly understandable. Words were added to verses to make the poetry flow. Keep in mind the translations were coming from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew, to Latin, and from there to 17th century English.

Here is a modern day example:
You go to a Mexican restaurant and you order "chicken fajitas." Plain, simple, and easy. Two words and your food is on the way. However, if you want to order the same dish in Spanish, it would be "fajitas de polla," or translated fajitas of chicken. The sentence structure is changed around and an extra word (of) is added. They mean the exact same thing, but there are multiple changes to make it happen. That is going from one language to another. Take the same scenario and spread it across 5 languages, for an entire book. With limited resources during 1611, errors are going to happen.

Fast forward 400 years. Instead of a dozen documents as resource, you now have 5,000 and can get a far more accurate cross language interpretation. That is why the modern English translations "omit" words or verses that were present in the KJV. They are cleaning up the extra stuff that was added to make the KJV "poetic." If you want the most literal translation, go with a NASB.
 
Newton was a brilliant mind and a true believer to be sure, but when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures and the original languages. (Hebrew and Greek) He pales in comparison to the knowledge of the individuals who help create the KJV-1611.
Click to expand...
FYI,

Newton always read and studied from the Hebrew & Greek and some Latin. Newton wrote over 1,000,000 words on the Bible, more than all his other work combined. He was more interested the academic and historical aspects then he was in ministry or the clergy. Besides, they didn't like his beliefs about the Godhead (he wasn't trinitarian).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top