 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Here are before me now two comparative studies of the origins of specific versions of Bibles. If there are two version then there is not one version.
Which version do I believe in?
The point is that the versions are basically the same. Joe, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. You can ask 3 different people to translate a bunch of Greek and you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations. They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS.
Ask you Russian friend...he has to explain words that he knows in Russian by using several English words sometimes. Sometimes he means one thing and it is hard for me to comprehend exactly what he means. So the point is that the King James "Version" is a TRANSLATION that was done and authorized by King James. In the link http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/6_Version_Comparison.pdf on page 3 you will find an outline or the English Bible Translation Timeline (I have copied it below but it may be easier to read on that site):
Short Chronology
Following is a very brief chronology of the most
significant milestones in the evolution of the
Bible into English. It is not in
tended to be thorough or exhaustive,
only to give the reader some
introduction to the subject and hopefully spark interest in further study.
100 The first century saw the completion of all th
e gospels and epistles
that now make up the
New Testament in their original Greek.
390 Jerome's Latin Vulgate manuscripts are pr
oduced at the direction of Roman Emperor
Constantine I, containing 80 Books (
39 Old Testament, 14 Apocrypha, 27 New
Testament).
1384 John Wycliffe produces the first hand written
manuscript copy of the complete Bible in
English (80 Books) from the Lati
n translations then in use.
1395 John Purvey revises the Wycliffe Bible.
1455 Gutenberg invents the printing press and prin
ts the first book ever printed, the Gutenberg
Bible in Latin.
1516 Erasmus prints the first consolidated New Te
stament in Greek from original manuscripts
1522 Martin Luther prints the
first New Testament in German translated directly from
Erasmus’ Greek.
1526 William Tyndale prints the first New Testam
ent in English transl
ated directly from
Erasmus’ Greek.
1530 Tyndale prints the first Pentateuch (the fi
rst five books of the Old Testament, the Jewish
Torah or Law) in English.
1534 Tyndale prints his revised New Testament.
1535 Myles Coverdale prints the first complete Bi
ble in English translated directly from Greek
(80 Books).
1537 Matthews Bible, the second complete Bibl
e to be printed in English, John "Thomas
Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).
1539 The "Great Bible", the first
English Bible to be authorized
for public use is printed (80
Books).
1560 The Geneva Bible, the first English Bible to
add numbered verses within each chapter is
printed, containing extensive refere
nces and commentaries (80 Books).
1568 The Bishops Bible, the Bible which King
James ordered to be the basis for the King
James Bible was printed (80 Books).
1611 The original King James Bible is printed (80 Books).
1769 The Baskerville-Birmingham revision to the
original King James Bi
ble is printed, with
spelling updates and minor word changes (80 books).
1885
The English Revision Committee revised the Ki
ng James Bible, removing the Apocrypha
and leaving the current 66 books. This is
known as the English Revised Version today
This information is nicely explained on this website http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
which also includes a more detailed timeline.
The point of knowing Christ Jesus the Lord is not me knowing him as something and you knowing him as something else and Frank knowing him as something else. The point is to know and understand the Bible and from there Jesus Christ is known. The Bible is reveals the Lord Jesus Christ so that we all might know Him AS HE IS. He is not a figment of an imagination to be known or made up. I point you to the Bible because it is the only way to know. I point you to an English Bible because it is the only language you know. If you know German I could point you to Martin Luther's Bible which he TRANSLATED from the Hebrew and Greek into German. That is the Bible used by the Amish. They still know German.
The point is to have the WORD OF GOD in your own language so that you are not dependent upon any man or priest or government to tell you what God says. The Roman Church kept the Bible locked away in the Latin language and only the clergy could read and understand it. They could make up whatever they wanted to to make the people do what ever they wanted the people to do such as eat and drink the body and blood in order to get to heaven, or to pay indulgences in order to get sins forgiven or get family out of Purgatory (a place that is non-existent in the Bible). God does not require the payment of money or the drinking of and eating of the blood and flesh of Jesus. God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin. Faith is individual and no one can have faith or get you faith. You alone are responsible to have or not to have faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So, that is why I say read the Bible, an English Bible that has been Translated from the Original Hebrew and Greek (the same way that you are depending on Surgi to translate Russian history into English for his book).
Here is some hearing for you
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/2-peter/1-audio.html Even "religious" people argue about what "version" of the Bible to use. It is a distraction.
Looking further down the link on The Original 1611 King James Version I can't tell what those words mean, when I zoom in the words may as well be Greek.
Joe, that is because in Old English the letter s was written as f and the letter u was written with a v. I can read it all either. That is another reason for modern "versions" or translations. We don't read Old English. The words thee and thou are confusing enough for some folks, much less trying to trade letters in and out of works so that they make sense. I can't read all of the introduction to that original 1611 Bible, because I don't have a modern translation of the introduction, but the introduction isn't part of the Bible. Those pages are all about how the King of England authorized scholars to translate the Bible into the English Language. (I remember reading Patrick Henry's work opposing the constitution. I had a hard time understanding early American English.)
(Let me also add, that if people in China wanted to read Frank's covenant, but didn't know English, what good would it be to them. Maybe they could get someone in China to translate it for them. Would the end product still be Frank's covenant if the translator was doing an honest job? What if 3 translators were doing an honest job, would every single word in Chinese be exactly the same? No, when it takes multiple words to explain a single English word the different translators may choose different Chinese words to accomplish the explanation. What if Surgi were to translate Frank's work, would he translate it the same way another Russian person using exactly the same Russian words to replace the English words? Would the words still be Frank's, but in a different language? Would the intent and content and covenant still be the same if Surgi were to do an honest job at the translation? What if multiple people worked together to make the translation into Russian. Would it maybe be a little better translation?
What if the translator had an ulterior motive? Would that not become evident when comparing it to multiple translations done by different people?
The point of me offering the link of the multiple English translations together was that the author of that link set out to find out the differences between the translations and found very few here are his words as found on his page 2:
I began this study as a skeptic, expecting to discover significant differences between these early translations and the King James. I happily found that there are no differences in the major points of faith, but there are many subtle differences in meaning and many passages are much easier to understand in one version than in another. I found no one version that seemed to be the best in every instance, each one has its strengths and weaknesses.
Now I am going to do bookwork, or I will not get bookwork done...and that was exactly what I was starting when I was trying to pick up where I left off and found your words:
[quote[So my sentences are a product of my intentions, and your help helps greatly in bridging the gap between what I intend to say, and what the reader may, or may not, get.
Your work appears to me to be of great value to me. I've told you about the English Writing Course of Study I paid for, so as to allow me to learn to write well, and the teacher supplied something that was powerless compared to what you supply.
Does that exemplify something worth knowing?
So, I ask: Which version of Joe Quotes is Joe Quotes?
Should we change the title? bear's Thoughts on Joe Quotes? Or bear's Editing of Joe quotes? Or, is Joe Quotes Joe's Quotes? To me that is just like the Bible. It was written in a language other than English and several "bears" have given us the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to English. And then another bear says, hey, I think we should add a word here to make it easier to understand. Hey you know we use "u" now instead of "v" and we use "s" now instead of "f" how about it if I fix those words so you can read them more easily. Oh, and that passage I gave you to listen too...Peter was talking about his tabernacle...he was refering to his earthly body. Did you get that Joe? I know that because I am used to reading those words (King James Translation):
2 Peter 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me
or would these words be better for you (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bbe/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14) (Basic English Translation):
13 And it seems right to me, as long as I am in this tent of flesh, to keep your minds awake by working on your memory; 14 For I am conscious that in a short time I will have to put off this tent of flesh, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
, or would these words be better for you http://www.biblestudytools.com/gnt/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14 (Good News Translation):
13 I think it only right for me to stir up your memory of these matters as long as I am still alive. 14 I know that I shall soon put off this mortal body, as our Lord Jesus Christ plainly told me.
or we could go back to Wycliff in 1300's and get this http://www.biblestudytools.com/wyc/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14 (which I find difficult even though I am familiar with King James English):
13 Forsooth I deem justly [Forsooth I deem just], as long as I am in this tabernacle, to raise you in admonishing; 14 and I am certain, that the putting away [for the putting off] of my tabernacle is swift, by this that our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed to me.
See what I mean jelly bean? Or you can sew buttons on your underwear...and I remember there was something that I thought was mean when you said it to mean and now I can't even remember what it was, but it was another one of those things that you used to say when you were a child and you meant it as funny. After you explained it I thought it was funny too. Do you remember what it was?
Oh ya, Guess what? Chicken Butt...but did you know, Joe, that I thought you were really saying Guess what? Chicken Crap, and not the nice word Crap, but the SH word. See Joe, we both speak english, but we are from 2 different families and we use words and jokes differently. I never in my life heard Chicken Butt from my father, but I did hear Chicken SH and it wasn't put nicely.
Soooo, as far as versions go, I hope the water is more clear.
Now, I hope I will do bookwork.