Questions on the Chinese Bible....

[TheBear]

....and other international Bible versions.


Are any of them 'authorized' versions? What are these versions based on? Are there some who go to a third party removed language, (like English), to compile their own version? And, what was the 'authorized' English version prior to the Renaissance Era?

 

[TheBear]

I hope I put this in the right forum....

 

[filosofer]

The United Bible Societies throughout the world have supported Bible translations in many languages. Most today use the Greek NA27 for the NT and BHS for the OT.

The only reason the KJV has carried the epitaph of "authorized" is because King James I of England "authorized"/sponsored the translation. There has not been an authorized version before or since - it is an anomaly. And really, the term shouldn't even be used, since it was applied to a specific nation at a specific time in history. BTW, the Pilgrims and alter immigrants to the colonies did not use the KJV, but the Geneva Bible.

No other nations have ever had an "authorized" unless a specific ruler declared such. But that does not make it any more authoritative than any other translation.

 

[TheBear]

Awsome!

Thanks for the info, filosofer.

 

[mythbuster]

I think that the "KJV only" type of debate is unique to English speakers, who may be a bit English-centric.

 

[TwinCrier]

I think that the "KJV only" type of debate is unique to English speakers, who may be a bit English-centric.

That is not true. Most languages have several 'versions' of the scripture in their language with debates over the manuscripts used. It would be useless for an English speaking and reading person to evaluate bibles written in a language unknown to us.
English-centric? English is the second most spoken language in the world and top read language.

 

[mythbuster]

Some of us speak more than one language.

Peace

 

[JohnJones]

"English version prior to the Renaissance Era"

I don't think "English" really existed prior to the Renaissance. It's predecessor in England was Saxon and there was a Saxon version, but Saxon is so much different from both modern English and Elizabethan English that it is a foreign language, so I doubt many people know much about it.

 

[Polycarp1]

"English version prior to the Renaissance Era"

I don't think "English" really existed prior to the Renaissance. It's predecessor in England was Saxon and there was a Saxon version, but Saxon is so much different from both modern English and Elizabethan English that it is a foreign language, so I doubt many people know much about it.

Sort of true, but not really. Anglo-Saxon, AKA Old English, was spoken prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066 and for a significant period after it -- but very little is preserved after 1066 thanks to the fact that the literate classes wrote either in Latin or Norman French between 1066 and about 1300.

Middle English is difficult reading but comprehensible, provided that you have a dictionary at hand for terms that don't appear to make sense in context (usually, the meaning has changed -- not to mention the spelling!).

Even Elizabethan/Jacobean English can throw a few tricks your way -- the bit about "ghost" in another thread (synonym for "spirit" in King James's time) and "I prevented the coming of the morning" (which is 1611 KJV for "preceded" -- literally, "I came before dawn," not "I stopped the morning from coming," is the meaning).

 

[StAnselm]

THere wasn't a Bible in English until John Wyclif in 1380. It is hard to read of course, but one can follow it somewhat. Here is Romans 8:37 - 39...

But in alle these thingis we ouercomen, for hym that louyde vs. But Y am certeyn, that nethir deeth, nether lijf, nether aungels, nethir principatus, nether vertues, nether present thingis, nether thingis to comynge, nether strengthe, nether heiyth, nether depnesse, nether noon othir creature may departe vs fro the charite of God, that is in Crist Jhesu oure Lord

 

[StAnselm]

The only reason the KJV has carried the epitaph of "authorized" is because King James I of England "authorized"/sponsored the translation. There has not been an authorized version before or since - it is an anomaly. And really, the term shouldn't even be used, since it was applied to a specific nation at a specific time in history.

Not quite. The Authorised Version wasn't just authorised by King James, it was authorised by the church. And that's a big problem today - we don't have church translations any more. They're all done by committees of scholars.

And they're copyrighted by large multi-national companies!! Like the NIV's copyright is held by Zondervan, which is controlled by Newscorp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. What's he doing authorising a bible?

 

[RVincent]

I tried reading a Chinese Bible, but I couldn't. It was all Chinese to me.

 

[JohnJones]

Even Elizabethan/Jacobean English can throw a few tricks your way -- the bit about "ghost" in another thread (synonym for "spirit" in King James's time) and "I prevented the coming of the morning" (which is 1611 KJV for "preceded" -- literally, "I came before dawn," not "I stopped the morning from coming," is the meaning).

Actually, ghost and spirit are still synonyms. As for "prevent" meaning "precede" back then, it's not too hard to figure out even today; If a person of reasonable intelligence simply reads Job chapter 3 they'll catch it, especially since Job is lamenting that he didn't die as soon as he was born and says (Job 3:12) "Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?" Obviously he did suck, or he'd be dead, which is what he wants, but doesn't have.

 

[JohnJones]

Not quite. The Authorised Version wasn't just authorised by King James, it was authorised by the church. And that's a big problem today - we don't have church translations any more. They're all done by committees of scholars.

That's an interesting point. I've often wondered why the Greek Orth. Church doesn't make any English translation considering they believe in the LXX rather than Hebrew in the OT. Also, why aren't Catholic translations based on the Clementine Latin Vulgate anymore seeing that the council of Trent said that anyone who makes a translation that disagrees with it is anathema? The C.L.Vulgate says in 1st John 5:7 "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. " Most modern translations say "For there are three that testify," and you don't even have to know Latin to see that something is missing here. According to the c. of Trent, that is not acceptable, since it differs from the Clementine Vulgate which that council declared to be the word of God 100% inspired and preserved. But apparently the Roman Catholic Church doesn't care about actually abiding by the council of Trent.(?) Add to this the fact that the RCC made a New Vulgate in the 60's or 70's that reads "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant." Since a ecumenical council (ecumentical in Rome's eyes anyway) declared the Clementine Vulgate to be the 100% inspired and preserved word of God (and it says "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt") how can they shorten it to "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant" and still claim their magesterium is infallible? They have to have made an error in one of these things (and shortening it was the error). Anyway, this just seems strange to me. Love to see what you think.

 

[prodromos]

That's an interesting point. I've often wondered why the Greek Orth. Church doesn't make any English translation considering they believe in the LXX rather than Hebrew in the OT.

http://www.lxx.org/

Its been a long time coming but it is coming. There has not been so much urgency because the OT isn't used much in the liturgy of the church apart from the Psalms, which have long been translated from the LXX.

John.