1. 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)

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by criticizer, Oct 15, 2005.

  1. criticizer

    criticizer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    17
    Ratings:
    +0
    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 ??
     
  2. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    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 .
     
  3. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    The King James Version is the only translation that I have seen that gets the first verse right.
     
  5. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    What do you mean? :confused:

    ~Victor
     
  6. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    In the beginning God created the HEAVENS, plural, and the earth.
     
  7. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +81
    Go to the original Hebrew.
     
  8. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +313
    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".
     
  9. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Thanks Sandy but that didn't help.

    ~Victor
     
  10. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    :confused: Lost me toward the end.

    I hope you realize he practices Judaism.

    Agreed.
     
  11. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +313
    Of course I do... but I don't see that as having any bearing on valid answers to the question asked. :)
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Umm...JerryL...the New Testament is irrelevant to him. So why mention Mark is in Hebrew?

    ~Victor
     
  13. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,764
    Ratings:
    +10,102
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Which one?
     
  14. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +81
    That's still not the correct translation. :)
     
  15. linnl

    linnl New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +0
    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:
     
  16. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +81
    What does that have to do w/ the topic?

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

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    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.
     
  18. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    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>
    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

    Hope you enjoy the path of bible study I recommend.
     
  19. greatcalgarian

    greatcalgarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,618
    Ratings:
    +178
    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!

     
  20. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    :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.
     
Loading...