What about the Ethiopian Bible that contains the Book of Enoch?
All European versions of the Bible have been edited. The Catholic Church started it around 300 AD.
Of course that picture for an Aftican Bible is ridiculous. :smack:
psik
Wow, the OP hasn’t been back.
[fake:eek:]
Started 12 threads.
15 posts total.
Yet the join date is over 2 years ago.
:rolleyes:
How many pounds did each page weigh? What was the weight of the ink?
A witch? Can we burn her?
I think the so-called King James “Version” is actually a translation from early Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is not based on other English versions.
As for the King James being the only designated Holy Bible, one would have to ask,“Designated by whom?”
King James requested that a translation be made in English in the early 17th Century. That doesn’t mean “designated by God.” And it certainly wasn’t the first “Holy Bible.” Nor was it the first English Bible.
I suppose that it depends on what one means by “based on.” The translators of the Authorized Version had to have been aware of, (and were likely familiar with), the Wycliffe version and other attempts. When rendering phrases from Hebrew or Greek into Seventeenth Century English, I suspect that they would have been influenced by phrases with which they were familiar.
Was it “based” on the Wycliffe or others in the way that the American Standard Version and the New King James Versions were based on the Authorized Version, in which the translators did little more than begin with the English version in front of them going back to the original languages only to get a better take on some awkward phrasing or language that had become outdated in English? Probably not. However, the notion that the AV sprang directly from the translators’ quills with no outside influence, (a theme promoted by several supporters of the AV/KJV), is probably not accurate, either.
There is no doubt that the translators of the 1611 ‘Authorised Version’ (which is arguably a misnomer) drew heavily on some of the existing English translations - they only ever claimed to be producing an improvement and that there were many parallels with Tyndale’s version is very well-known. What however is far less clear is whether there was any influence at all, even indirectly, from Wycliffe. No one is quite sure whether even Tyndale had ever read Wycliffe. Nor is this that surprising. Wycliffe’s translation had only circulated in manuscript and, although widely read in the fifteenth century, it had never had anything like the same impact as the printed Protestant translations of the sixteenth century. The few examples of possible parallels in the 1611 translation are actually ones that seem to have been adopted via the Catholic Rheims translation.
As for the OP’s suggestion that Wycliffe’s version is the best, that’s just bizarre. One obvious question has to be ‘which version?’ - there were two, very different ‘Wycliffe’ translations. Also, as they circulated only in manuscript, the texts of both have extra layers of copyist errors. Finally, neither version can be more complete than any other translation as both relied entirely on the Vulgate.
Yeah. I should have said Tyndale, not Wycliffe. I grabbed the name Wycliffe simply because it keeps oddly appearing in this thread.
They were instructed to follow the readings of the Great Bible, unless the sense was plainly wrong.
They did not, of course, have access to the Codex Siniaticus or the Codex Vaticanus manuscripts which are older than any of the other texts known in the 17th c…
What kind of physics tests are you trying to do on the Bible?
Please be so kind as to explain them to us as further demonstration of your intelligence.
psik
What I am demonstrating is knowledge as opposed to the apparent ignorance that you displayed.
First, the physics jab was directed toward your demonstrated propensity to Conspiracy Theories (as indicated by your “Catholic” claim).
Now the errors in your post, (so many demonstrations of a lack of knowledge in a single line):
Your date is entirely wrong. The first versions of the bible that were edited began during the creation of the Torah, as anyone with even marginal awareness of the JEDP and later literary theories would know. Later “versions” included the additions of the (Nevi’im), prophets writing in the seventh through sixth centuries. Still later editing occurred with the further additions of such works as Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and later works such as Daniel as the Kethuvim. During this period, several books were possibly added and then removed, and specific works were added during the creation of the Septuagint. Later, Christians, (not “Catholics” per se), tended to use the Septuagint, since it was in Greek, a more widely used language, picking up Maccabees, Tobit, Ruth, Wisdom, Sirach, possibly Enoch, and others. As Christianity arose, it is possible that some of the Kethuvim were edited out at a hypothetical meeting in the Jewish school at Jamnia. Christians then began putting together their own books, with a list that looks remarkably like the current list around 170. All of these editings occurred in Asia (with an occasional input from Africa). Later, Christians (in Asia, Africa, and Europe), refined their own lists, establishing their canon in the late fourth century. Catholics and Orthodox did not really begin separating until the tenth century, with a big break in the eleventh and a final break occurring in the fifteenth, so references to actions by “Catholics” around 300 are just anachronisms.
So, to review your odd claim:
Claims that “European” versions have been edited implies that non-European versions have not been edited, when even the most cursory look at the compilation of the bible demonstrates that it has been edited with multiple versions pretty much everywhere that people have practiced Judaism or Christianity. Then your use of the word “Catholic” implies some sort of odd belief that Catholics did something different than everyone else. Finally, your date is just wrong at every level, from ignoring the 1,000± years of editing that preceded 300 C.E. to missing the councils that formalized the Christian canon by around 70 years.
The OP specifically mentioned the King James Bible so obviously it was referring to the Christian Bible involving the New Testament. So discussing the writings before the arrival of JC is absurdly pedantic.
But the Nag Hammadi texts show considerable degree of “selection” done in the formation of the Bible by what was to be the Catholic Church. Constantine ordered this and it began with the council of Nicea.
You can try to smear my comments with conspiracy crap all you want. That is somewhat amusing.
psik
You said “bible” rather than “New Testament,” so you have only yourself to blame for any confusion. (And, given the inclusion of the Deutero-Canonical works that pre-date the New Testament but must be considered in light of the “Christian” bible, it is not pedantry but a necessary component of fighting ignorance to mention the full bible’s history to you. When you try to make some point about the Book of Enoch and Europeans, you are demonstrating serious ignorance of a topic on which you are trying to appear knowledgeable. Nicaea is in Asia Minor and the majority of the bishops in attendance were from Asia and Africa.)
You really do need lessons to overcome your ignorance.
As I already noted, the list of books that would later be recognized as canonical was already listed around 170 in the Muratorian Canon–155 years prior to the Council of Nicaea.
And if you had bothered to read your own link, you would have noted that the current popular legend about Constantine and Scripture is nonsense:
I am hardly trying to “smear” you with a reference to your well-established CT credentials. I am simply mocking you and pointing out your errors–such as your anachronistic reference to fourth century Christianity as the Catholic Church, your silly claim that the church “started” editing the bible around 300, and your willingness to post on the topic of Scriptural development despite the same sort of ignorance of the topic that you have demonstrated regarding skyscraper construction and physics.
YAWN!
Yeah, I caused the weight of the paper and ink to be an issue. :smack:
psik
I prefer the original.
Surely you mean a Biblical talent.
It is amusing watching you try to change the subject away from the ignorance you demonstrated. However, this sort of off-topic hijack is not the way to do it.