Which bible version is the original one?

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MightyLionOfJuda

Guest
#81
Im not boasting! I am defending the act of fasting and saying that it is not some jewish practice but is for anyone who feels led to do so and it is to your benefit to fast,not the other way around,its not to the enemys benefit to fast unless God has told you not to fast for a specific reason.I have nothing to boast about except Christ.Please, enough with the playground attitude!
 
Last edited:
S

ShariJo

Guest
#82
Well, back to the original question....

Zondervan publishing put out a translation comparison chart. According to this chart, the most accurate "word for word" translation (meaning they were compared with the original Greek manuscripts) would be:
Interlinear
NASB (which is a wonderful translation, by the way!)
Amplified
English Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
THEN, the KJV!
NKJV
Holman Christian Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
New American Bible
New Jerusalem Bible

Then, working my way back from the other side of the chart ("thought for thought" which basically means taking and paraphrasing it):
The Message
Living Bible
Contemporary English Version (aka:Good News Bible)
NIV readers Version
NLR
New Century Version
Today's New International Version
and the NIV

Dr. Brown (my professor at school) has studied Greek and Hebrew for over 35 years says that he prefers the NASB out of all of them. :)
 
M

MightyLionOfJuda

Guest
#83
wrong! please try again,lol
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#84
I like accuracy.
Things in red I did not say and do not believe.

Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus also have nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The major differences in the NT Greek Text are between the Majority of manuscripts(as represented by the KJV) and the so called neutral text which is an arbitrary combination of the two(Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus).

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition…." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

The Dead Sea scrolls are not at issue. The issue is the choice of underlying NT Greek Text.
With exception of KJV(NKJV etc) all other translations are the product of this arbitrary amalgamation of two codexes. Sinaiaticus literally found in the bottom of a trash can.
Vaticanus lost in the Vatican library for centuries gathering dust.
I really think we ought to have the discussion regarding specific passages and compare both the translations and the two Greek texts (Textus Recepticus and Nestle). I think your problem is regarding the translation, not the text. For instance, I think you would have more difficulty with the translation of the "Behold a virgin shall concieve" passage in Isaiah rather than in Matthew. Your issue with Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus should be based upon actual passages not simply an a priori. Considering how little true difference you will find in the two texts, I think your placing the problem in the wrong place.Again, the illustration regarding the Dead Sea scrolls is that you cannot use one set of rules for them (older=probably more accurate) and expect to be taken seriously when you the exact opposite stand on the New Testament manuscript (older=probably flawed). Again, since the majority of texts also agree with the Nestle, the issue of majority does not matter.
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#85
I read some bible verses online & but they are not word per word exactly the same as the one in my bible.
I have the recovery version...
So im a little confused... Is my bible the version real or a new remake or what?
Thanks all for your answer =)

& which bible version do you have?
I'm not sure if you're talking about the English translations only. If it's the English translations, I would hazard a guess that the KJV is the "original" or better described as the first English translation.

From my understanding, the books of the Bible as we know it are translated from Hebrew and Greek. But before they are translated, 7 texts (in Hebrew and Greek) are compared to create the Bible. Each of the books/texts also undergo scrutiny to see if 5 items can be established: the author, when it was written, if the contents are consistent with the other texts, and two more that I can't remember. If someone can clarify here... I'm no scholar...

The KJV was translated from Latin which means it has already gone through a translation before being translated into English. If you are fluent in another language, this will be easier to understand. Let's say we're translating a Chinese word/phrase into English. I may be able to provide a fairly good translation but there are times when my translation loses some cultural, emotional, and historical meaning. Translate my English translation into Tagalo and you will lose additional meaning. Translation from Greek and Hebrew is no different. As soon as you translate the texts, you will lose something from the original languages. It can be a lot or it can be very little. But something is lost in the translation.

So I would say use several Bibles if you have more than one but I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than all the others. Each have their strong/weak points. If you're really trying to learn about the things in the Bible, you won't just rely on the Bible alone. Research the history, culture, scholarly papers and other things. The more you read, the better your understanding.

Oh, to answer your question, I use the NIV.
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#86
I'm not sure if you're talking about the English translations only. If it's the English translations, I would hazard a guess that the KJV is the "original" or better described as the first English translation.

From my understanding, the books of the Bible as we know it are translated from Hebrew and Greek. But before they are translated, 7 texts (in Hebrew and Greek) are compared to create the Bible. Each of the books/texts also undergo scrutiny to see if 5 items can be established: the author, when it was written, if the contents are consistent with the other texts, and two more that I can't remember. If someone can clarify here... I'm no scholar...

The KJV was translated from Latin which means it has already gone through a translation before being translated into English. If you are fluent in another language, this will be easier to understand. Let's say we're translating a Chinese word/phrase into English. I may be able to provide a fairly good translation but there are times when my translation loses some cultural, emotional, and historical meaning. Translate my English translation into Tagalo and you will lose additional meaning. Translation from Greek and Hebrew is no different. As soon as you translate the texts, you will lose something from the original languages. It can be a lot or it can be very little. But something is lost in the translation.

So I would say use several Bibles if you have more than one but I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than all the others. Each have their strong/weak points. If you're really trying to learn about the things in the Bible, you won't just rely on the Bible alone. Research the history, culture, scholarly papers and other things. The more you read, the better your understanding.

Oh, to answer your question, I use the NIV.
simply not true
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#87
I really think we ought to have the discussion regarding specific passages and compare both the translations and the two Greek texts (Textus Recepticus and Nestle). I think your problem is regarding the translation, not the text. For instance, I think you would have more difficulty with the translation of the "Behold a virgin shall concieve" passage in Isaiah rather than in Matthew. Your issue with Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus should be based upon actual passages not simply an a priori. Considering how little true difference you will find in the two texts, I think your placing the problem in the wrong place.Again, the illustration regarding the Dead Sea scrolls is that you cannot use one set of rules for them (older=probably more accurate) and expect to be taken seriously when you the exact opposite stand on the New Testament manuscript (older=probably flawed). Again, since the majority of texts also agree with the Nestle, the issue of majority does not matter.
Not a true statement

You can take the Nestle printed text and you WILL NOT find a handwritten codex which agrees with it.
It CERTAINLY does not have majority text support.

It is an arbitrary(I am now talking about the 'Neutral' text on which it is based) amalgamation from a handful of sources primarily Codex Aleph and Codex B(Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus) by two unsaved men named Westcott and Hort in the 1800s.

Westcott and Hort
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text.

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."

In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."

Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!

Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession, "Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the concordia discourse." Commenting on the four places in Mark's gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the cock's crowing is mentioned said, "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places."87

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."

He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission."

How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."

Dr. Westcott was also deeply devoted to John Newman, the Roman Catholic defector who took 150 Church of England clergymen with him when he made the change. Those of his disciples who did not make the physical change to Rome, made the spiritual change to Romanism, though many, like Westcott, never admitted it.
In writing to his futue wife in 1852, Westcott wrote: "Today I have again taken up 'Tracts for the Times' and Dr. Newman. Don't tell me that he will do me harm. At least today he will, has done me good, and had you been here I should have asked you to read his solemn words to me. My purchase has already amply repaid me. I think I shall choose a volume for one of my Christmas companions."
This was written after Newman had defected to Rome!:mad:
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#88
Nah the KJV isn't the first english translation. The first was produced by Wycliffe 200 years before the KJV.

The purpose for making the KJV was for partly political, partly religious reasons.
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#89
Nah the KJV isn't the first english translation. The first was produced by Wycliffe 200 years before the KJV.

The purpose for making the KJV was for partly political, partly religious reasons.
Yes, you only have to read the epistle dedicatory in its introduction.
 
N

NoTearsShed

Guest
#90
Wow, lots of comments about which Bible to read. The KJV was translated so that the people of the day could understand it easily, that was 400 years ago. The KJV is certainly not the original, those were in greek and arimaic and I don't believe King James had any authority, authority is given to my Lord. 400 years ago people spoke in a language we now call old english, they spoke with words that we no longer use and it is difficult for us with out taking a course in old english to fully and accuratly understand them. Read the Bible that is clearest to you, study regularly and compare it to the KJV and others. If you find something that is unclear, ask someone for help in understanding. Pray for understanding. God wants you to understand his word, not be confused by it. When Wycliff first translated into english sone 700 years ago the english people had no Bible, they made one that they could understand. The same is true now. Don't be bothered by those who throw stones at you for reading what helps you understand, for those whom are perfected, they should cast the first one.

Thank you for the advice =)
 
N

NoTearsShed

Guest
#91
well the King James Bible was the Authorized version for almost 400 years now(1611) most of the newer preversions came along in the 1950's some later, I only say preversions for the fact if the KJB was the Bible for 400 years in order to get someone back in the 1950's and to date, to lay down the Authorized King James version , they have to attack the very Bible that was the Word for 400 years now. fine example of this, the ones that told you it was too hard to understand are attacking the Word, finding something wrong with it so you will use their translation, if you are not for God you are against Him , if you are not for His Word, You are against it . A house divided can not stand but other translators can come in attack the Authorized Word Of God in order to sell you theirs to make a buck, and Christians buy in to it and do it in the Name of Jesus. The Bible Say if ye lack wisdom , ask God , not change His word,. another thought on this, Kids are doing so much harder classes than I did 30 years , no one can disagree with this , but yet the same kids that are doing trig in the eighth or less now maybe, or not as smart. they can not understand the same bible that kids did 300 years ago, does this make any sense to anyone. They have put the most popular Niv. and the Kjb though the reading test that determines the reading Grade that a book is rated and the King James Bible came in at a 5th grade level and the NIV came in at a upper 8th grade level, but yet almost everyone says the the NIV is the easiest to understand. Now I am not, at this point going over where the differences within the translation but there are some major conflicts within the translations that are all suppose to be the true inspired word of God.

yeah I don't know about others, but they will get My King James Bible from me when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.


That might or might not be true but i do know " if you are not for God you are against Him , if you are not for His Word, You are against it ."
Is true, No one at my church is telling me what bible version is wrong or bad, i read that off of this site which i googled,
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_kjv.htm
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#92
I'm not sure if you're talking about the English translations only. If it's the English translations, I would hazard a guess that the KJV is the "original" or better described as the first English translation.

From my understanding, the books of the Bible as we know it are translated from Hebrew and Greek. But before they are translated, 7 texts (in Hebrew and Greek) are compared to create the Bible. Each of the books/texts also undergo scrutiny to see if 5 items can be established: the author, when it was written, if the contents are consistent with the other texts, and two more that I can't remember. If someone can clarify here... I'm no scholar...

The KJV was translated from Latin which means it has already gone through a translation before being translated into English. If you are fluent in another language, this will be easier to understand. Let's say we're translating a Chinese word/phrase into English. I may be able to provide a fairly good translation but there are times when my translation loses some cultural, emotional, and historical meaning. Translate my English translation into Tagalo and you will lose additional meaning. Translation from Greek and Hebrew is no different. As soon as you translate the texts, you will lose something from the original languages. It can be a lot or it can be very little. But something is lost in the translation.

So I would say use several Bibles if you have more than one but I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than all the others. Each have their strong/weak points. If you're really trying to learn about the things in the Bible, you won't just rely on the Bible alone. Research the history, culture, scholarly papers and other things. The more you read, the better your understanding.

Oh, to answer your question, I use the NIV.
Earliest English Bible was Wycliffe's,translated from the Latin Vulgate
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#93
Not a true statement

You can take the Nestle printed text and you WILL NOT find a handwritten codex which agrees with it.
It CERTAINLY does not have majority text support.

It is an arbitrary(I am now talking about the 'Neutral' text on which it is based) amalgamation from a handful of sources primarily Codex Aleph and Codex B(Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus) by two unsaved men named Westcott and Hort in the 1800s.

Westcott and Hort
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text.

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."

In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."

Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!

Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession, "Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the concordia discourse." Commenting on the four places in Mark's gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the cock's crowing is mentioned said, "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places."87

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."

He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission."

How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."

Dr. Westcott was also deeply devoted to John Newman, the Roman Catholic defector who took 150 Church of England clergymen with him when he made the change. Those of his disciples who did not make the physical change to Rome, made the spiritual change to Romanism, though many, like Westcott, never admitted it.
In writing to his futue wife in 1852, Westcott wrote: "Today I have again taken up 'Tracts for the Times' and Dr. Newman. Don't tell me that he will do me harm. At least today he will, has done me good, and had you been here I should have asked you to read his solemn words to me. My purchase has already amply repaid me. I think I shall choose a volume for one of my Christmas companions."
This was written after Newman had defected to Rome!:mad:
Westcott and Hort's method of using the simplest texts were the purest has largely been replaced by looking at the internal evidence. Today's Nestle's text is not the work of Westcott and Hort's attempt to modify the textus recepticus. Westcott and Hort's method was limited at best. So how about some spicific comparisons?
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
#95
There seems to be a lot of arguing with not everyone knowing much other than what they have been told or feel loyalty to (greatkraw seems to know his stuff tho)... If you are going to make arbitary statements make sure you can back them up! :)

Think this has been said earlier - but it's worth saying again, the translators working on the new versions are working with the earliest manuscripts available... So claiming that older versions are better because they have been 'authorised' seems a little odd and almost out of tradition than anything else... If anything the newer versions are more accurate because they are working with more information.

Overall, if you want the perfect bible, learn to speak Greek and Aramaic. :p




As for fasting, each to their own.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#97
I prefer Cadbury but Nestle makes nice chocolate too.
I guess he had hobbies. lol. the latest Nestle is edited by aland, Black, Martini, Metzger and Wikren. The last edition (that I know of) was under the oversight of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and published by United Bible Societies. The Textus Recepticus was last edited by Scrivener in 1894. So, anyone for some direct comparisons?
 
N

NoTearsShed

Guest
#98
Thank you everyone for your opinions & facts =)
Although a person in here should not be sooo rude about a translation about the witness lee translation/footnotes.

Im looking foward to reading the New King james version & the The New American Standard Bible
sometime after i finish reading the Recovery version which is the one im reading right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.