The difference in the versions of the Bible and why their are so many

[Snowy]

I have never understood this..please help me understand

 

[Galadriel]

Hello there!
The most simple explanation I can think of is that language changes. What meant something back in the 1600's, or even in the 1900's, can mean something totally different now. So, scholars get together to revise the Bible into language that we can understand, that fits our time so that we don't mistake words for meaning something they don't. The truths and principles stay the same, that is not lost, though some think it is. A verse that means this in the 1600's still means this same thing in the 1900's, just the lingo has been updated so that we can understand better.

 

[layne]

I agree that the different versions are all there to make it easier for people to understand. The King James version uses words like "thee", "thy" etc. Some people don't like that lingo, so they use a translation such as the New Testament. Some bibles also refer to God the Father as Yahweh or Jehovah, and some refer to him as LORD, and use Lord to refer to Jesus.

 

[Galadriel]

I agree that the different versions are all there to make it easier for people to understand. The King James version uses words like "thee", "thy" etc. Some people don't like that lingo, so they use a translation such as the New Testament. Some bibles also refer to God the Father as Yahweh or Jehovah, and some refer to him as LORD, and use Lord to refer to Jesus.

Isn't the New Testament a whole section of the Bible and not a translation?

You may be thinking of NIV (New International Version). There are many different versions, but they all contain the same truths.

 

[gehenna]

The translations are just for language and vocabulary differences. I like the New Living Translation myself. It's a good Bible for beginners or students.

 

[Sinai]

RE topic: "The difference in the versions of the Bible and why their are so many"
I have never understood this..please help me understand

Let me add a few comments to what Galadriel, layne and gehenna have said. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translatin can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side.

 

[layne]

Yeah, duh to me... I meant NIV. I was thinking of another bible I also have called the "New World Translation".

 

[Reader Nilus]

Some people like me like British English and so I prefer the New English Bible or the Revised English Bible. Another issue in the various versions is the Greek text behind them. Most use the Nestle/Aland 27 edition of the Greek Text, which incorporates all the latest texual finds. The New King James Version prefers the Recieved Text that the KJV used, which is a late Greek Text as opposed to the Nestle/Aland which has Greek witnesses that the KJV translators did not have access to.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Mr.Cheese]

If you've ever had to translate from one language to another, you learn that quite often, there is no "word for word" way to go about it. Each translation is a legitimate way to go about bringing the greek and hebrew into English. Generally speaking, no translation is the superior translation.
Look at how many translations there are of Homer's works. It's the same principle.

 

[Serapha]

I would like to add a few comments to those already posted.

There are several sources to the current translations of the Bible. The Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew texts with some Aramaic in the book of Daniel. It has remained uncontested, more or less, since the first century since Jesus used the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.


With the advent of the New Testament, in a time when Greek was a standard language and Latin was quickly being accepted, the Hebrew texts were being translated into Greek (Septuagant), and also into Latin (the Latin Vulgate). So in manuscripts, there are Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Different translations come from the different background translations. Some texts have been preserved better through the Latin Vulgate while others have been better preserved through the Septuagant translation. Overall, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their translation of the Old Testament, it has been found that the Word of God is being preserved just as God promised. Each translation comes from a specific witness (manuscript family).


Modern translations are great for "reading", but when you are studying the Word, it is better to study an older, more reliable text such as the KJV or the Latin vulgate early translations.

Questions?

~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

Modern translations are great for "reading", but when you are studying the Word, it is better to study an older, more reliable text such as the KJV or the Latin vulgate early translations.

Questions?

~malaka~

Yes. Don't most of the modern translations use sources older than that used by the KJV? The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, had not been discovered at the time the KJV was published.

 

[Philip]

There are several sources to the current translations of the Bible. The Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew texts with some Aramaic in the book of Daniel. It has remained uncontested, more or less, since the first century since Jesus used the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

This is not entirely accurate. Christians have been quoting the Deuterocanon as Scripture since the time of the Aposltes. It was (is) included in the vulgate. More recently, this has been contested.

With the advent of the New Testament, in a time when Greek was a standard language and Latin was quickly being accepted,

Latin was never widely accepted in the Eastern half of the Empire.

the Hebrew texts were being translated into Greek (Septuagant),

The Septuagant (LXX) was translated around 250 BC.

and also into Latin (the Latin Vulgate).

The Vulgate was not translated until around AD 400.

but when you are studying the Word, it is better to study an older, more reliable text such as the KJV or the Latin vulgate early translations.

Questions?

I have a question: Are you aware that the Vulgate and the KJV disagree at several places?

 

[Serapha]

I bow to your superior knowledge, and ask you to answer the question that Sinai asked. I will forego simplicity in the future and do texutal criticisms that I might meet your specifications rather than address the inquiry. I wasn't aware I had to meet the moderator's specifications... but in the future, there will be no question concerning manuscript evidences.


To answer your question, "yes", the Johannine comma is an excellent example of a disagreement.

Do you want a listing published of the differences between the Latin Vulgate and the KJV? I would be glad to accomodate you.


~malaka~

 

[Edouard]

If you are interested in understanding the languages of the scriptures, might I reccomend a cross reference. They now have written bibles with the greek, hebrew, and aramiac above and the english below. (word for word ) and in this there is no loss of meanin per say. but it is not as easily understood.

Edouard
May the Holy Spirit guide your thoughts.

 

[Philip]

My question was rhetorical.

 

[Yitzchak]

I have never understood this..please help me understand

translations were made to address certain problems in getting the bible to people in a useful form.

[size=+2] First problem [/size]
The original bible was written thousands of years ago, first the old testament and then the new testament. The orginal manuscripts were lost over the centuries and what we have now are copies of copies of copies, etc. And sometimes only fragments of those copies.

[size=+2] Second Problem [/size]
The orginal bible was written in languages other than english.

[size=+2] Third Problem [/size]
Different uses of the bible

[size=+2] Looking For Solutions [/size]
The bible is updated to address the first problem. As archeologists discover older and more accurate manuscripts, it opens the possibility of a more accurate translation. Each time this happens, yet another translation.
There is one more element to this which is the response to the third problem. Is this bible for a child? Or is it for a bible scholar? Sometimes the translation is simplified and some of the literal language of the original is lost to make it readable. So sometimes the translations exist as an effort to be more literal and other translations in an effort to be more in touch with modern slang and readable to the average person. most translations try to strike a balance between the two.

[updown] Hope this helps[/updown]