• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question (about the bible versions)

Hi
How are you freind ?

I heard that there is king james bible , and there are other bible versions, I want from you to write it , and what is the different between it ?

And what is the different between the chatolic and brotestant and orthodox ??
 

may

Well-Known Member
criticizer said:
Hi
How are you freind ?

I heard that there is king james bible , and there are other bible versions, I want from you to write it , and what is the different between it ?

And what is the different between the chatolic and brotestant and orthodox ??
the bible that i use the most is the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES i find this to be very good, as the aim of this translation is to get back to the original meaning it is printed by Jehovahs witness .
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
criticizer said:
Hi
How are you freind ?

I heard that there is king james bible , and there are other bible versions, I want from you to write it , and what is the different between it ?

And what is the different between the chatolic and brotestant and orthodox ??
The differences between the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant bible canons is basically down to use of the Septuagint or Masoretic OT. Protestants basically use the Masoretic text (a post-Christian Jewish text), though they do rely on certain Septuagint readings in their translations of some books - notably Isaiah. We Orthodox still use the entire Septuagint text (translated into Greek by Jews in Alexandria between 300 and 100 BC) and the Roman Catholics also use most of this version of the OT. The upshot of this is that the Protestants removed the deutercannonical books (also known as the Apocrypha) some time after the Reformation, whereas we still use all of them and the Roman Catholics still have the vast majority of them. There are several other threads here on this issue to which I haev contributed information. Searching for 'Septuagint' ought to find them.

James
 

Deut 13:1

Well-Known Member
criticizer said:
Hi
How are you freind ?

I heard that there is king james bible , and there are other bible versions, I want from you to write it , and what is the different between it ?

And what is the different between the chatolic and brotestant and orthodox ??
Go to the original Hebrew.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Binyamin said:
Go to the original Hebrew.
I don't see how that would help either question. It would not explain the differences in translation histories, nor would it explain the differences in what it cannon.

Plus, and I realize this may surprise you, the New Testement was never in Hebrew (except, I think, Mark).

That said, James has given an excellent answer (and will be getting froobles) regarding the differences in cannon. An attempt to discuss the differences in translations among a dozen different Bibles is asking a lot... the short version is "different interpretatations of various source-material".
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
I don't see how that would help either question. It would not explain the differences in translation histories, nor would it explain the differences in what it cannon.
:confused: Lost me toward the end.

JerryL said:
Plus, and I realize this may surprise you, the New Testement was never in Hebrew (except, I think, Mark).
I hope you realize he practices Judaism.

JerryL said:
That said, James has given an excellent answer (and will be getting froobles) regarding the differences in cannon. An attempt to discuss the differences in translations among a dozen different Bibles is asking a lot... the short version is "different interpretatations of various source-material".
Agreed.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
Of course I do... but I don't see that as having any bearing on valid answers to the question asked. :)
Umm...JerryL...the New Testament is irrelevant to him. So why mention Mark is in Hebrew?

~Victor
 

linnl

New Member
kjv nasbe nkjv etc... The thing is John 14:6 Jesus said......" I am the way, the Truth,... and the Life,,,NO MAN COMETH to the Father....but by Me!" That is it.....Jesus ALONE or eternity apart from Him.....not an interp.......but what He said in textus and crititical text!

:rolleyes:
 

Deut 13:1

Well-Known Member
linnl said:
kjv nasbe nkjv etc... The thing is John 14:6 Jesus said......" I am the way, the Truth,... and the Life,,,NO MAN COMETH to the Father....but by Me!" That is it.....Jesus ALONE or eternity apart from Him.....not an interp.......but what He said in textus and crititical text!

:rolleyes:
What does that have to do w/ the topic?

And everything in the KJV and NASBE, and NKJV, is an interpretation.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
In the beginning God created the first heaven, the one where He lives (?). The other heavens, the sky and space came after the first day. Only in the King James Version is this offered correctly. All other translations that I have seen the first verse is offered as "...God created the heavens and the earth.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
criticizer said:
Hi
How are you freind ?

I heard that there is king james bible , and there are other bible versions, I want from you to write it , and what is the different between it ?

And what is the different between the chatolic and brotestant and orthodox ??
Dear Criticiser,

I suggest you start off reading the formation or the canon of the bible before jumping into KJV and other bible versions, which are later translation of the bible.

I always recommend any serious bible knowledge seeker to start off with this beautiful historical approach and analysis of the old testament:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml

<H2>Chapter 1 ?What Is the Old Testament?
THE Old Testament is a collection of selected writings composed and edited by members of the Hebrew-Jewish community between the twelfth century B.C. and the beginning of the Christian era. It includes such diverse materials as prophetic oracles, teachings of wise men, instructions of priests and ancient records of the royal courts. Some material is historical, some is legendary; some is legalistic, some is didactic. For the most part the literature was written in Hebrew, but a few passages were written in Aramaic, a kindred language which came into common usage among the Jews during the post-Exilic era (after the sixth century B.C.). The Aramaic portions include Dan. 2:4b-7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; and one phrase in Gen. 31:47 "Jegar-sahadutha," translated "Heap of Witness."

The term "Old Testament,"1 or more properly "Old Covenant," is a Christian designation, reflecting the belief of the early Christian Church that the "new covenant" mentioned in Jer. 31:31-34 was fulfilled in Jesus and that the Christian scriptures set forth the "new covenant," just as the Jewish scriptures set forth the "old covenant" (II Cor. 3:6-18; Heb. 9:1-4). Jewish scholars prefer the term "Tanak," a word formed by combining the initial letters of the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (Law), Nebhiim (Prophets), and Kethubhim (Writings).
</H2>
And then proceed to see how the NT developed either by Richard Carrier or Larry Taylor:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."
Astonishingly, the story isn't even that simple: for the Catholic church centered in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves, with Ethiopian and Coptic and Syrian and Byzantine and Armenian canons all riding side-by-side with each other and with the Western Catholic canon, which itself was never perfectly settled until the 15th century at the earliest, although it was essentially established by the middle of the 4th century. Indeed, the current Catholic Bible is largely accepted as canonical from fatigue: the details are so ancient and convoluted that it is easier to simply accept an ancient and enduring tradition than to bother actually questioning its merit. This is further secured by the fact that the long habit of time has dictated the status of the texts: favored books have been more scrupulously preserved and survive in more copies than unfavored books, such that even if some unfavored books should happen to be earlier and more authoritative, in many cases we are no longer able to reconstruct them with any accuracy. To make matters worse, we know of some very early books that simply did not survive at all (the most astonishing example is Paul's earlier Epistle to the Colossians, cf. Col. 4:16), and have recently discovered the very ancient fragments of others that we never knew existed, because no one had even mentioned them
Dictionaries and researchers define the word, "canon," as a body of books accepted as authoritative by some religious body. Thus there is no problem of the canon; most modern Protestants, and Protestant churches historically, accept exactly sixty-six books, thirty-nine books from Hebrew, which they call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven books written in Greek, which they call the New Testament. Protestants use and accept these books; therefore, there are sixty-six books in the Protestant canon.

Roman Catholics include fifteen more books or parts of books, and that is their canon; Greek Orthodox churches use most of these books, and these comprise their canon. The Jewish tradition is that of the Hebrew Bible only, of course, corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestants. East Syrian Christians include fewer books than other Christians in the New Testament, while the Ethiopian churches use quite a few more books in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
Hope you enjoy the path of bible study I recommend.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
When you are well read on how OT and NT were formed, then you are well equipped to look at different arguement regarding various version of the bibles, for example, you can then appreciate reading articles in the web link:
http://www.bible.ca/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search4/?pr=default&order=r&query=King+James+version&cq=&submit=Submit

For example, in this link: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
Was the translation process from original languages into English of 1611 A.D. protected from error by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
"KJV only" advocates say yes!

The Facts say NO!

 

SPLogan

Member
sandy whitelinger said:
In the beginning God created the HEAVENS, plural, and the earth.
:bonk: Did God create "the waters" or did he create "water?" I say: yes.


Anyway, back to the point: there are three approaches to translation: literal, dynamic equivalent, and free/paraphrase
1) Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep the historical distance intact at all points.
2) Dynamic Equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. Most keep historical distance but update matters of language, grammar and style.
3) Free or Paraphrase: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original text. This type of translation tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.
(How to Read the Bible for all its Worth: Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart 1993)

All translations are some variation of the above categories. Translators are always torn between conveying the exact words and conveying the exact ideas of the ancient text. Ancient figures of speech, for example, can be misunderstood by modern readers if they are translated "literally." On the other hand, if a translator tries to convey the original "ideas" or intensions to help modern readers understand, s/he could mislead the reader or miss more subtle points in the text.


This is partly why, several hundred years ago, the Catholic Church did not allow Scripture to be translated into the common languages of the day. There's no way to translate it in a way that won't be misunderstood. You would have the same problem in translating any ancient writings, but most people don't care- because most ancient writings don't carry profound religious significance.
 
Top