Bible Editions
- Thread starter Merida
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aside from words that look strange, the King James has many words which you think you know, but they had very different meanings back in 1611.
Many people that encourage others to read the King James don't understand it as well as they think they do. I've seem them spam this phrase from the King James many times, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" thinking the verse means to study something. "Study" means to work hard.
Many people that encourage others to read the King James don't understand it as well as they think they do. I've seem them spam this phrase from the King James many times, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" thinking the verse means to study something. "Study" means to work hard.
-
1
- Show all
The NLT frequent changes word and adds words for no readily apparent reason. For example, when Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans aren't Jewish), the NLT says, “A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho..." The problem is, no transcript on the planet identifies the traveler as Jewish. The NLT translators just pulled out of their b*tts that the man is Jewish. So, if you study the NLT, you'll be thinking the Bible says things it just plain doesn't.
Hi, I am not a native English speaker, so be tolerant to my English.
The Old Testament
a) canon
There are various canons used in Christianity. Oldest ones have more books (used by the RCC, by the Orthodox Church), protestants used them too, but in 19th century they decided took them out of the Bible). Jews had their canon closed in the 1st century, officially. Also the Palestinian canon differs from other books used by Jews elsewhere.
Canon of the Old Testament is a complex and unclear situation, today.
b) textual variations
There are several textual lines for the Old Testament. Most protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text. Its a text edited and "cleaned" by Jews, its oldest copy is from the 9th century.
Older churches and the first church used the Greek Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures from 300 BC. The oldest copy we have is from the 4th century AD.
There are also discovered scrolls from the Dead Sea, this scrolls witness that in the first century, there were several textual variations used together and it seems that the church chosed one and the Jews chosed another, a less Christ-like text.
Also, the Old Testament is so ancient, that we have no chance to be certain what the original text said in various places, sometimes whole books differ. But it is not as huge problem as it seems, when we consider the fact that the Old testament was given to Israel, not to us. We should use it mainly as a historical witness about our Lord, not as something where we must take every sentence as we have it in our specific edition of the Bible.
The New Testament
a) canon
The canon of the New Testament is quite clear, the situation here is much better than with the Old Testament. First chuch did not have any type of canon and even not the idea of it. But when various heretics and various heretical writings appeared, the church declared the 27 books we have today as the most trustworthy and apostolic. All Christian churches have the same canon of the New Testament.
b) textual variations
Situation is again much better than with the Old Testament, simply because the New Testament is a thousand years younger. We have very old scraps not more than few decades away from the events. The oldest complete texts of the New Testament are from the 3rd, 4th century AD.
It must be said though, that 1,500 years of hand copying also created several textual variants of the New Testament. These variants are many, but mostly insignificant (like wording or even not translatable things as punctuations).
There are some places, though, where changes the meaning of the text. But no Christian basic doctrine depends on this places.
Two most spread variations today are:
The majority text
- its an edition kept mainly by the Eastern Orthodox churches (who use the Greek language from the beginning), its a clean, traditional text, good for liturgical purposes;
The minority text
- ancient text of the New Testament from outside the byzantine empire, it was a dominant textual variant for the first Chuch until the islam came and the copy making stopped; because the eastern byzantine empire was not conqured by muslims, their textual variant became majority in time.
Then there is also so called Textus Receptus, an edition made by the RCC priest Erasmus. This is based on just few manuscripts that were accessible in Europe in the 16th century, but most European reformation translations are based on this (as is the KJV), so few people today believe that this text is somehow perfect. And manytimes want to call it the majority text, but it is not.
Translation methods:
a) literal translation
Translation commiteee will translate word for word the text literally. Bad for reading, may be misleading and produce misunderstandings. But generally faithfull to the underlying text.
b) dynamic translation
Translators will translate though with thought. That means they do not want to give you words of the underlying text, but the meaning of it in your cultural understanding and in your language.
c) paraphrase
Very free translations, where a translator just give you a message, and his work with the text is very subjective. Most Christians do not recommend this.
d) underlying text
Most protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text for the Old Testament fixed in some uncertain or too unchristian places with the Septuagint reading. Non-protestant Bibles use the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate with some corrections from the Masoretic text.
For the New testament, most today's Bibles use the minority text as presented in the Nestle Aland compilation. Older, reformation Bibles, used some edition of the Erasmus compilation.
The Old Testament
a) canon
There are various canons used in Christianity. Oldest ones have more books (used by the RCC, by the Orthodox Church), protestants used them too, but in 19th century they decided took them out of the Bible). Jews had their canon closed in the 1st century, officially. Also the Palestinian canon differs from other books used by Jews elsewhere.
Canon of the Old Testament is a complex and unclear situation, today.
b) textual variations
There are several textual lines for the Old Testament. Most protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text. Its a text edited and "cleaned" by Jews, its oldest copy is from the 9th century.
Older churches and the first church used the Greek Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures from 300 BC. The oldest copy we have is from the 4th century AD.
There are also discovered scrolls from the Dead Sea, this scrolls witness that in the first century, there were several textual variations used together and it seems that the church chosed one and the Jews chosed another, a less Christ-like text.
Also, the Old Testament is so ancient, that we have no chance to be certain what the original text said in various places, sometimes whole books differ. But it is not as huge problem as it seems, when we consider the fact that the Old testament was given to Israel, not to us. We should use it mainly as a historical witness about our Lord, not as something where we must take every sentence as we have it in our specific edition of the Bible.
The New Testament
a) canon
The canon of the New Testament is quite clear, the situation here is much better than with the Old Testament. First chuch did not have any type of canon and even not the idea of it. But when various heretics and various heretical writings appeared, the church declared the 27 books we have today as the most trustworthy and apostolic. All Christian churches have the same canon of the New Testament.
b) textual variations
Situation is again much better than with the Old Testament, simply because the New Testament is a thousand years younger. We have very old scraps not more than few decades away from the events. The oldest complete texts of the New Testament are from the 3rd, 4th century AD.
It must be said though, that 1,500 years of hand copying also created several textual variants of the New Testament. These variants are many, but mostly insignificant (like wording or even not translatable things as punctuations).
There are some places, though, where changes the meaning of the text. But no Christian basic doctrine depends on this places.
Two most spread variations today are:
The majority text
- its an edition kept mainly by the Eastern Orthodox churches (who use the Greek language from the beginning), its a clean, traditional text, good for liturgical purposes;
The minority text
- ancient text of the New Testament from outside the byzantine empire, it was a dominant textual variant for the first Chuch until the islam came and the copy making stopped; because the eastern byzantine empire was not conqured by muslims, their textual variant became majority in time.
Then there is also so called Textus Receptus, an edition made by the RCC priest Erasmus. This is based on just few manuscripts that were accessible in Europe in the 16th century, but most European reformation translations are based on this (as is the KJV), so few people today believe that this text is somehow perfect. And manytimes want to call it the majority text, but it is not.
Translation methods:
a) literal translation
Translation commiteee will translate word for word the text literally. Bad for reading, may be misleading and produce misunderstandings. But generally faithfull to the underlying text.
b) dynamic translation
Translators will translate though with thought. That means they do not want to give you words of the underlying text, but the meaning of it in your cultural understanding and in your language.
c) paraphrase
Very free translations, where a translator just give you a message, and his work with the text is very subjective. Most Christians do not recommend this.
d) underlying text
Most protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text for the Old Testament fixed in some uncertain or too unchristian places with the Septuagint reading. Non-protestant Bibles use the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate with some corrections from the Masoretic text.
For the New testament, most today's Bibles use the minority text as presented in the Nestle Aland compilation. Older, reformation Bibles, used some edition of the Erasmus compilation.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Can more than one version be the word of God? They all contain different words with different meanings and even contain different truths. God is not the author of confusion. The same God who gave us His words to live by, did He not also preserve them for us today to live by? If so, where are they? If not, why should we read any so called version of the bible?
Do you have a version you hold to be the holy, pure words of God without error?
Do you have a version you hold to be the holy, pure words of God without error?
I am afraid you opened a battle here 
But why not, when they started it:
"...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."
(Rev 22:19)
Erasmus did not have the Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin and so created a reading that does not exist in Greek at all. Greek has "out of the tree of life".
But why not, when they started it:"...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."
(Rev 22:19)
Erasmus did not have the Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin and so created a reading that does not exist in Greek at all. Greek has "out of the tree of life".
-
1
- Show all
It has never been proven wrong? The hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe even millions of people who have died from being bitten by a poisonous snake during a snake-handling meeting would disagree with you, my friend.
“Go into the world. Go everywhere and announce the Message of God’s good news to one and all. Whoever believes and is baptized is saved; whoever refuses to believe is damned.
17-18 “These are some of the signs that will accompany believers: They will throw out demons in my name, they will speak in new tongues, they will take snakes in their hands, they will drink poison and not be hurt, they will lay hands on the sick and make them well.”(Mark 16:15-18)
Those who advocate snake-handling use this passage to support their belief. Jesus said "they will take snakes in their hands, they will drink poison and not be hurt." So, either this passage is false or Jesus lied, seeing they took snakes in their hands and died, when He said they would not be hurt.
The Church of Christ also uses this as 'proof' water baptism is necessary for salvation. No other place in the four gospels does Jesus add baptism as a necessity of salvation. Yet, the CoC and some Baptists, hold to this view based on this longer ending in Mark 16.
“Go into the world. Go everywhere and announce the Message of God’s good news to one and all. Whoever believes and is baptized is saved; whoever refuses to believe is damned.
17-18 “These are some of the signs that will accompany believers: They will throw out demons in my name, they will speak in new tongues, they will take snakes in their hands, they will drink poison and not be hurt, they will lay hands on the sick and make them well.”(Mark 16:15-18)
Those who advocate snake-handling use this passage to support their belief. Jesus said "they will take snakes in their hands, they will drink poison and not be hurt." So, either this passage is false or Jesus lied, seeing they took snakes in their hands and died, when He said they would not be hurt.
The Church of Christ also uses this as 'proof' water baptism is necessary for salvation. No other place in the four gospels does Jesus add baptism as a necessity of salvation. Yet, the CoC and some Baptists, hold to this view based on this longer ending in Mark 16.
-
1
- Show all
I am afraid you opened a battle here But why not, when they started it:
"...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."
(Rev 22:19)
Erasmus did not have the Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin and so created a reading that does not exist in Greek at all. Greek has "out of the tree of life".
But why not, when they started it:"...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."
(Rev 22:19)
Erasmus did not have the Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin and so created a reading that does not exist in Greek at all. Greek has "out of the tree of life".
If you compare the King James Bible to the manuscripts used to translate it into English, of course there is no difference. That would be like building a house using blueprints, and then comparing that house to the blueprints used in building it. That is circular reasoning you are using, my friend.
The manuscripts used in the modern versions have been proven to have been written closer to the time of Jesus. Use manuscripts written in 325-350 AD or use manuscripts that were written between 1000-1200 AD? I will go with those written the earliest.
The manuscripts used in the modern versions have been proven to have been written closer to the time of Jesus. Use manuscripts written in 325-350 AD or use manuscripts that were written between 1000-1200 AD? I will go with those written the earliest.
-
2
-
1
- Show all