about the different versions of the bible

Great Debates
21

I don’t think so. Dr. Errico states that the 1611 King James version was based on a revision of the Bishop’s Bible on the basis of Hebrew and Greek. And the Bishop’s Bible is yet a revision of the Great Bible, and it too being a revision of yet three more Bibles: the Matthew, Coverdale and Tyndale Bibles. And as Errico argues, when it has in its title newly translated from the original tongues that “statement is not entirely in accord with the facts.”

The King James Version since the 1611 edition has undergone 100,000 changes according to a Dr. Wallace whom is a evangelical. He has a very interesting cite and this particular piece will explain why he thinks the KJV is not the best translation to be using today:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/kjv.htm

JZ

22

Yes, but since God has instructed us to actually read the Bible for ourselves, why would the RCC decide to instruct us not to?

On another notel, it was the educated RCC priests who started and maintained the Reformation away from the contradictions they upheld.

23

It’s the Lamsa translation. Unlike other Bibles that relied on various Greek texts for their English versions, this one comes from Aramaic manuscripts dated around the fifth and six centuries. Dr. Lamsa estimated there are about ten to 12 thousand outstanding differences between these Aramaic Peshitta manuscripts and those of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. This is in “A Brief History of the English Bible” by Rocco A. Errico.
JZ

24

Well… they found out early on, that reading the Bible for yourself led to heresy.

JZ

25

This one?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805211195

26

heresy or knowledge?

If I was to teach you science, but told you not to read the science book and to only trust me, what would you think?

especially if I said that I was the only authority…

27

By ‘knowledge’ I presume you mean ‘different interpretation’.
I hope.

28

Put up or shut up time, roy. Please provide an actual and honestly attributed quote that proves this particular statement.

And an honestly attributed citation for this overwhelmingly stunningly incorrect generalization.

29

Do you have a citation for God instructing us to “read the Bible for ourselves”? I think it’s a good idea, but God never referred to “the Bible” (unless you want to assert that the Bible is only the Jewish Testament to which Jesus referred, on occasion).

And, you have not established that the RCC prohibited its members from reading the bible. I suspect that the discussion will now turn aound statements limiting who was permitted to interpret the bible–a situation that may be shameful, but is hardly the same as claiming that people were forbidden to read it–or that the church attempted to destroy original-language copies (as opposed to destroying translations they condemned, also shameful, but not what was originally claimed).

30

Have you never heard of Martin Luther? John Wycliffe? Peter Waldo? John Knox? John Calvin? These founders of the Protestant churches were good Catholics…
“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entruste d to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” (RCC Catechism Pg. 27, #85)

Normal people are not capable of understanding the written word?

I do not have all of the quotes for you right now, but when I come back from home, I will bring them for you.

These are facts as recorded by the RCC, as well. I suggest that maybe you try reading sometime. The RCC has available the transcripts from the Ecumenical councils, but admitedly, they do not like letting “normal” people see how many priests and bishops disagreed with many of the traditions they the RCC, but it is available.

31

Both. Heresy is simply derived from a Greek word meaning “choice.” And if we each have a mind of our own, and can honestly say what we think of the scriptures, it’s going to led to knowledge often conflicting what the Church teaches.

JZ

32

The RCC has even put the Bible on it’s index of Forbidden Books List. And throughout its history is has burned Bible’s that has conflicted with what it was teaching.

http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/answer/Bible.html

JZ

33

Not exactly true about the Great Bible, which has no connection to the “Matthew” Bible of John Rogers. Miles Coverdale, who translated both the Coverdale and Great Bibles, might better be described as a “collaborator” (I use the term preferred by A. G. Dickens in The English Reformation) who didn’t have the translation skills of Tyndale and cribbed from his work and, apparently, Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum.

Also, I would hedge Dr. Errico’s assessment of the Authorized Version being a “revision” of the Bishop’s Bible. Much as the compliers of the Authorized hated to admit it, much of their phraseology came from the Geneva Bible. The distate of the Authorized compliers for that Bible stemmed from religious politics rather than hermenuetics; the Geneva Bible was considered “Calvinist” and thus outside of the prevailing Jacobean theology. Indeed, the existance of the KJV is almost solely due to the desire of the Jacobean bishops to oust the Calvinist Geneva Bible from a position of primacy in the English church.

And, far be it from me to contradict tomndebb, but there were many, many examples of the Roman church in 15th and early 16th-century England banning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular and of declaring the text and its readers heretical. I suppose “Exhibit A” would have to be the 1407 Constitutions of Oxford, but there were further church edicts between 1407 and 1536.

34

Since that particular Catholic cite I used is basically refutting the RCC never put it on it forbidden list, I’ll look for another cite or retract my statement on that if I can’t find it unless somebody else can.

JZ

35

True, true, although in some cases, the thinking processes involved in the origination of the concepts may not be verifiably reproducible by modern humans, no matter how hard we try.

In any case, I reckon all this wrangling about which Bible is the ‘true’ Bible, although possibly interesting, is ultimately a diversion - Christianity isn’t based on the precise wording of this or that excerpt of scripture, but rather on the God revealed therein. Too narrow a view and the elephant looks and feels exactly like a wall.

36

This is what I found according to the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition (1911) that you can read about in this cite:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/1911-matthews.html

In that cite you’ll find this quote:

**Rogers had little to do with the translation, but he contributed some valuable prefaces and marginal notes. His work was largely used by those who prepared the Great Bible (1539-40), out of which in turn came the Bishop’s Bible (1568) and the Authorized Version of 1611.
**

JZ

37

You are confusing understanding and interpreting. The church claims to have the best link to God to interpret and understand and explain Scripture. Certainly, people outside the RCC will dispute that point–and I will not try to defend that perspective of the church. However, that is a far cry from claiming that people are not allowed to read the bible or take inspiration from it.

And if they truly had a problem with people knowing how many priests and bishops disagreed with particular decisions, they would not allow publications such as the Catholic Encyclopedia to document most of the controversies, laying out the positions taken by the various participants. The RCC has invoked censorship, to its shame, on several occasions, The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was a particularly foolish attempt, but those attempts have been enlarged in the popular imagination of its detractors to a level of banning that the church never attempted or achieved.

The first sentence is in error and the second sentence needs to be clarified.

“The Bible” has never been put on the Index. There have been several specific translations of the Bible that have been put on the Index because they specifically translated some verses in a way to bolster arguments against the RCC’s position on some topics or because they carried commentary that was openly hostile to the RCC. I do not approve of the Index and I find that sort of censorship both stupid and wrong. However, there has never been a time when the Church prohibited Catholics from reading “The Bible,” only from reading specific, hostile translations.

The RCC did decide that the Latin Vulgate was its official version which was to be used for translation and interpretation (a point from which it has, fortunately, backed away), but it did not condemn the existence of the Greek books or the Textus Receptus.

The RCC actually encouraged the study of Scripture at the Council of Trent.

Note: I am not defending all the actions of the RCC. This specific discussion began with the claim that the RCC had attempted to suppress copies of the original Scriptures (or its Textus Receptus version). In fact, the references, as I speculated earlier, have (when accurate) been references to translations and interpretations. However, badly the RCC acted in those situations, that is not the same as the claim to which I first responded.

Duke, the Constitutions of Oxford did not forbid translation into the vernacular: it prohibited any translation that had not been approved by episcopal review. This is offensive to our spirit of free inquitry (mine as well as anyone else’s), but it is not the same as claiming that all translations were prohibited.

(I also find it amusing when discussing the Reformation, to see the amount of book burning and people burning carried out by the opponents of Rome ignored as if they never happened. The RCC, as the larger and more deeply entrenched organization, carried out more persecutions than those who opposed it, but the opponents were quite capable of demanding their own orthodoxy once they were free of Rome’s.)

38

“The Bible” meaning, I guess, any canonically correct Catholic version. You mention other Bibles were put on the index because they bolstered arguments against the RCC’s position on some topics. Why wouldn’t that have included all of the Protestant Bibles?

JZ

39

For day-to-day use, I use a copy of The New English Bible which I was given years ago. Here’s a link to the preface which explains how this translation came to be written. One thing I particularly like about it is it notes some passages which could be interpreted more than one way. For example, Mark 1:1 reads “Here begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” with a footnote which reads “*Some witnesses omit *the Son of God” (coding theirs). Mark 1:11 reads “And a voice spoke from heaven: Thou art my Son, my Beloved; on thee my favour rests.’” “Beloved” is followed by this footnote: “Or Thou art my only Son.”

That said, I’m not saying this is the best or most accurate. I’ve seen multiple volume Bibles, including one which I think is called The Interpreters Bible which goes into much more detail about the original meanings of various words. If I ever win the lottery, I am definitely buying a copy!! I used to be a translator and, for Pentecost services, I’ve translated verses into Japanese, among them, “Peace be with you!” so I know first hand the difficulties of ensuring an accurate translation. Among other things, one year when I did this, I decided I’d been using the wrong word for “peace.” I’m not a trained Biblical translator – with a major in Japanese and a minor in German, I concentrated much more on patents and other business documents – but I do know how difficult it can be finding a word which captures just the right nuances. Since it’s my understanding that many of the languages the basic documents used to translate the Bible are in languages which are no longer spoken, and that included Ancient (as opposed to Modern) Greek, that makes it all the harder.

CJ

40

Hi, toadspittle -

Yes, that’s the one. I led a Bible study at my church using that translation. I kept running into things that jarred me back on my heels - like the Ten Commandments, which are translated something like -

“Stealing - NOT!”

Sort of similar to when I first translated 1 Samuel 20:30. The RSV has Saul’s outburst as

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!”

A more literal, as well as more accurate translation was,

“You son of a bitch!”

Suddenly Saul becomes a real character, not just an actor in a costume spouting lines.

Regards,
Shodan