Bibles come and bibles go ....

[hedrick]

My biggest problem with recent Good News is the loss of the wonderful drawings.

 

[RoBo1988]

The Living Bible story is a good one. I don't read it much, but I do own a paperback copy Tyndale | Kenneth N. Taylor

I find that denominations endorse Bible translations; deliberately, or not. Lutherans had the RSV/NRSV (although I had a Pastor who used the NIV), Pentecostals the KJV/ NKJV, etc. And, many use the same version their pastor does.

I started out in the NIV(from the Lutheran Pastor previously mentioned); now read the KJV, NKJV, and ESV. I just finished a complete trip through the Bible, and am a week into my next. It usually takes 1.5 years for me to complete the Bible

The worst translation I have seen was The Message, edited by Eugene Peterson, who's other books I liked.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The worst translation I have seen was The Message, edited by Eugene Peterson, who's other books I liked.

Some of it is good, some is terrible.

 

[Shane R]

Most of the major translations are now under continuous review. The English language changes so rapidly it is impossible to publish a truly contemporary Bible. HCSB set an unproductive precedent by rapidly revising. Now everyone publishes a revision every 10-15 years. The concept of sacred language is nearly lost.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The English language changes so rapidly it is impossible to publish a truly contemporary Bible.

Informal language changes rapidly but I can read a book written in 1923 with little difficulty, one from 1823 too, and 1723 has only some personal pronoun issues, it is not until 1623 that I'd encounter vocabulary changes sufficiently numerous and strange to mean some research is needed.

What I think is the deeply rooted cause for difficulty with formal english is education. It seems that education is now not as oriented to formal english as it used to be.

 

[eleos1954]

I was thinking this morning, before breakfast, that some of the modern bibles that I like most are now rather hard to get, or if not hard to get they are clearly bibles of the past. This was a melancholy thought.

I like the Good News Bible
I like the Revised Standard Version
I like the Jerusalem Bible

But they are all bibles of the past. I imagine the same can be said of many other bibles, the 1977 NASB, the 1995 NASB, the Living Bible, The Message, ... and more.

Yet some old bibles remain popular, the KJV and the Douay Rheims Bible, remain popular.

What's the cause? Is it commercialism. All the ones I liked are copyright, but the old bibles are not. Perhaps it is prices, and maybe levels of trust.

How do you see it?

The Douay-Reims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate … it contains 73 books. … it contains the Duterocannoical books of the Old Testament. This version is regarded by many in the Catholic church …. Not exclusively.

The KJV bible (66 books) is translated from the received text (You can google that)

The KJV for instance follows the Protestant pattern and do not include the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Newer bible translations sometimes uses language that is questionable … in that … and will sometimes add language or notes that does not actually appear in the original Greek or Hebrew …. It’s a good idea to compare various translations and beyond that use a Greek and hebrew lexicon.

a free resource is found here ….

and yes one the main reasons for various translations are due to commercialism … it’s about money.

I’m not recommending one over another …. Just stating there are differences and one can …. And should compare ALL translations and then use the lexicons as well …. It is the closest we can get without knowing the original Greek and Hebrew.

Www.biblehub.com

May the Lord bless you in your studies. Amen.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The KJV bible (66 books) is translated from the received text (You can google that)

KJV has 80 books I believe, it has all of the Deuterocanon and some more.

 

[eleos1954]

KJV has 80 books I believe, it has all of the Deuterocanon and some more.

The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books. 1611: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

Lots of info here ….

Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books. 1611: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

Lots of info here ….

Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

Yes, lots of information, the removal upsets some today, mainly Anglicans.

 

[eleos1954]

Yes, lots of information, the removal upsets some today, mainly Anglicans.

I think because Anglicans include features of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism …. And there is no way the two are going to be in complete harmony with one another. Catholics never compromise …. But many Protestants do compromise. …. No matter what flowery words the pope may say or write down ….. they DO NOT compromise their doctrine at all and they never will contradict their doctrine … . Protestants are either allowing themselves to be deceived or are willfully compromising their protestant teachings (at least some) that came out of the reformation. The reformation is where the name Protestant came into being.

A Protestant is one who separates themselves from the Catholic Church …. The two are not mergable On all doctrines and never will be …. Unless Protestants acquiesce. (and some are very important doctrinal differences)

If they do ….. then they are no longer Protestants …. But Protestant/catholic hybrids (I dunno Protestlics?). Lol

Now that being said …. Protestants are against many of the catholic system doctrines and not the people themselves. Wonderful loving people in the Catholic System.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think because Anglicans include features of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism …. And there is no way the two are going to be in complete harmony with one another. Catholics never compromise …. But many Protestants do compromise. …. No matter what flowery words the pope may say or write down ….. they DO NOT compromise their doctrine at all and they never will … . Protestants are either allowing themselves to be deceived or are willfully compromising protestant teachings (at least some) that came out of the reformation. The reformation is where the name Protestant came into being.

A Protestant is one who separates themselves from the Catholic Church …. The two are not mergable On all doctrines and never will be …. Unless Protestants acquiesce. (and some are very important doctrinal differences)

If they do ….. then they are no longer Protestants …. But Protestant/catholic hybrids (I dunno Protestlics?). Lol

Catholics have no choice in the matter of adhering to the truth that the Church has received. Yet some do compromise, some hold quite liberal opinions, partly derived from Protestant liberal scholarship. But in the pews among the faithful many will not consider compromise with Protestantism because Protestantism is in essence a second step in Church history into liberalism. Protestantism grew out of the philosophical innovations of the late renaissance and the very early enlightenment, and these philosophical views began the process of questioning Divine truths. I do not say that everything of that time was a compromise with unbelief but quite a lot was. And Martin Luther as well as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli all drank in some of the philosophy of radical individualism that was being born at that time and all absorbed much of the scepticism of that time. Catholics too have had their encounters with these influences but the Church as the body of Christ has his presence and the Spirit which are constantly calling Catholics back to the deep rooted gospel truths that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[eleos1954]

Catholics have no choice in the matter of adhering to the truth that the Church has received. Yet some do compromise, some hold quite liberal opinions, partly derived from Protestant liberal scholarship. But in the pews among the faithful many will not consider compromise with Protestantism because Protestantism is in essence a second step in Church history into liberalism. Protestantism grew out of the philosophical innovations of the late renaissance and the very early enlightenment, and these philosophical views began the process of questioning Divine truths. I do not say that everything of that time was a compromise with unbelief but quite a lot was. And Martin Luther as well as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli all drank in some of the philosophy of radical individualism that was being born at that time and all absorbed much of the scepticism of that time. Catholics too have had their encounters with these influences but the Church as the body of Christ has his presence and the Spirit which are constantly calling Catholics back to the deep rooted gospel truths that the Catholic Church teaches.

The Catholic Church accepts both traditional teachings and/or biblical ones …. True Protestantism is based on biblical ones (supposed to be anyways). Sola scriptura ….. as the Bible became available in different languages …. And people started studying it … Then various interpretations/understanding of it became debatable ….. and still are debatable this day … and will continue to be debatable until the Lord returns. It is not philosophical differences …. It is theological differences.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Catholic Church accepts both traditional teachings and/or biblical ones …. True Protestantism is based on biblical ones (supposed to be anyways). Sola scriptura ….. as the Bible became available in different languages …. And people started studying it … Then various interpretations/understanding of it became debatable ….. and still are debatable this day … and will continue to be debatable until the Lord returns. It is not philosophical differences …. It is theological differences.

Not sola scriptura but rather, opinion alone. Protestant Scripture was defined according to Protestant opinion and from there it was interpreted according group opinions and according to individual opinions. As time has passed individual opinions came more and more to the fore. The Protestant Bible yields Protestant doctrines when read through the filter of Protestant opinions. Naturally Catholic teaching rejected it as error and heresy. But we are beginning to stray far from the thread's topic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I noticed several mentions of the KJV not being copyrighted, but I didn't see (though I may have simply missed it) anyone correcting that. It's true that, for example, in the United States the KJV is in the public domain. But in the UK the KJV belongs to the British Crown under a copyright unto perpetuity, and it is only by Royal Prerogative that publishers are allowed to publish it--without permission from the Crown it can't be published.

So public domain in the US, copyrighted in the UK. The situation in the Commonwealth Nations I'm not sure.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But in the UK the KJV belongs to the British Crown under a copyright unto perpetuity, and it is only by Royal Prerogative that publishers are allowed to publish it--without permission from the Crown it can't be published.

But that is not copyright. It is Royal prerogative and one seeks a license to publish. However, I think that some in the UK do publish as they please, and most UK publishers have connections with USA and other overseas or colonial presses which do not ask for a license.

 

[Valletta]

The Catholic Church accepts both traditional teachings and/or biblical ones …. True Protestantism is based on biblical ones (supposed to be anyways). Sola scriptura ….. as the Bible became available in different languages …. And people started studying it … Then various interpretations/understanding of it became debatable ….. and still are debatable this day … and will continue to be debatable until the Lord returns. It is not philosophical differences …. It is theological differences.

Catholics made Biblical text available in a considerable number of languages and people studied the Bible intently long before Protestants came along. But literacy rates were in the single digits. Once a Catholic named Gutenberg printed books, his first book printed of course being the Bible, literacy rates dramatically increased. Protestants were particularly successful in countries that had few Christians to start. Before the printing press a monastery might have only one Bible, and priests would have to memorize long passages before they could go out and travel to bring the Gospel to the people.

 

[eleos1954]

Catholics made Biblical text available in a considerable number of languages and people studied the Bible intently long before Protestants came along. But literacy rates were in the single digits. Once a Catholic named Gutenberg printed books, his first book printed of course being the Bible, literacy rates dramatically increased. Protestants were particularly successful in countries that had few Christians to start. Before the printing press a monastery might have only one Bible, and priests would have to memorize long passages before they could go out and travel to bring the Gospel to the people.

Unless google is wrong .... the first printed bible was in the year
1455 .... the protestant reformation began in the year 1517

The point is the bible was not in written form for a long time .... nor in a variety of languages for a long time,

Catholics made Biblical text available in a considerable number of languages and people studied the Bible intently long before Protestants came along.

Please provide your source for this.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Unless google is wrong .... the first printed bible was in the year
1455 .... the protestant reformation began in the year 1517

The point is the bible was not in written form for a long time .... nor in a variety of languages for a long time,

Writing, hand writing, is not printing.

The bible was hand written, hand copied from the time it was created until printing began and after that most bibles were printed but some are still hand written. The ones that are hand written today are the manuscripts of every new translation that the translator makes along with every hand written copy that people - some in very isolated places, some as an exercise in holy meditation in monasteries, make.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Please provide your source for this.

For ancient languages the existence of Bible translations is well known and need not be documented by me here.

Translations into languages other than Latin before 1517 AD:

The most notable Middle English Bible translation, Wycliffe's Bible (1383), based on the Vulgate​

​

The earliest known translation of the entire Bible into Spanish is the "Biblia Complutense" or "Alba Bible." It was completed in 1514 by Francisco Ximénez, a friar at the Complutense University of Madrid. This translation was based on the Latin Vulgate, the standard version of the Bible used in the Roman Catholic Church at the time, and was an important resource for the spread of Christianity in Spain and Latin America. The "Biblia Complutense" is considered to be a significant work in the history of Spanish literature and is still widely used today.​

​

The earliest known translation of the entire Bible into Italian is the "Bibbia della Divina Commedia" or "Bible of Divine Comedy." It was completed in 1392 by Niccolò Malermi, an Italian friar and scholar. This translation was based on the Latin Vulgate and was an important resource for the spread of Christianity in Italy. The "Bibbia della Divina Commedia" was widely used in Italy during the 14th and 15th centuries and is considered to be a significant work in the history of Italian literature and the Italian language.​

​

The complete Bible was translated into Old French in the late 13th century. Parts of this translation were included in editions of the popular Bible historiale, and there is no evidence of this translation being suppressed by the Church.​

​

The entire Bible was translated into Czech around 1360.​

​

The Hungarian Hussite Bible appeared in 1416.​

​

Pope Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized versions of the Bible as a reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized.

So, there were numerous pre-protestant-revolt translations, some authorised, some not, and some we no longer have but know about through historical references to them.

 

[Valletta]

The Douay-Reims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate … it contains 73 books. … it contains the Duterocannoical books of the Old Testament. This version is regarded by many in the Catholic church …. Not exclusively.

The KJV bible (66 books) is translated from the received text (You can google that)

The KJV for instance follows the Protestant pattern and do not include the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Newer bible translations sometimes uses language that is questionable … in that … and will sometimes add language or notes that does not actually appear in the original Greek or Hebrew …. It’s a good idea to compare various translations and beyond that use a Greek and hebrew lexicon.

a free resource is found here ….

and yes one the main reasons for various translations are due to commercialism … it’s about money.

I’m not recommending one over another …. Just stating there are differences and one can …. And should compare ALL translations and then use the lexicons as well …. It is the closest we can get without knowing the original Greek and Hebrew.

Www.biblehub.com

May the Lord bless you in your studies. Amen.

A great many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people, even though for most of the history of Christianity the majority of people were illiterate. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English.