Why so many English versions of the Holy Bible?

[eleos1954]

And many articles that one finds online turn out to be full of blatant lies.

The three organisations I listed are the actual publishers of the NIV, ESV, and CSB.

And one function of copyright is to prevent unauthorised changes to translations. That's not a bad thing.



Indeed it is.



I read Koine Greek, actually. When I say that the ESV is the best translation, that's from comparing the ESV to the Greek.

You are being more than a little patronising.

Didn't mean to come across as patronising ... I don't know you. I use the ESV as my hard copy bible as well. .... it's good to know you go into more in depth with studying ... many people don't ... I would say probably most. So now I know more about you. ;o)

 

[BNR32FAN]

It would be more accurate to say that the KJV (or rather, the texts that it's based on) adds passages that were not originally there (usually by accidentally copying a few words from somewhere else in the Bible).

The ASV is missing a huge portion of The Lord’s Prayer. I believe it’s missing “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever”. Matthew 6:13 is just one example. There are many many more omitted verses in the ASV so I stopped using it.

 

[timothyu]

I believe it’s missing “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever”.

If the religion had it's way back in the day it would have eliminated that a long time ago. But it was convenient to twist to justify their own kingdoms. The same applies today but some see the Kingdom for what it is, a threat to the world man has made and would prefer their hypocrisy was not pointed out.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If the religion had it's way back in the day it would have eliminated that a long time ago. But it was convenient to twist to justify their own kingdoms. The same applies today but some see the Kingdom for what it is, a threat to the world man has made and would prefer their hypocrisy was not pointed out.

I couldn’t see any reason to omit that verse. Now maybe if it were something insignificant then it probably would’ bother me so much but to omit something from The Lord’s Prayer?!! Especially an entire sentence?!! No way I don’t want anything to do with a Bible like that. If I had time I could point out dozens more omissions.

 

[timothyu]

No way I don’t want anything to do with a Bible like that.

I agree. Re-affirming 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done." Something the world doesn't want to hear.

 

[Radagast]

The ASV is missing a huge portion of The Lord’s Prayer. I believe it’s missing “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever”.

None of the oldest manuscripts or early Christian Bible quotes have those words.

This seems to have been something that the Church added to the prayer, based on 1 Chronicles 29:11 ("Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.").

Later on (probably around the year 400) somebody added it to the Greek New Testament, to make the Bible match what the Church was doing.

Most modern translations have these words in brackets or in a footnote.

If I had time I could point out dozens more omissions.

They are all actually additions to later manuscripts of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Other religions teach their children to read "sacred literature" in the original languages, like Hebrew and Arabic. What you're giving is an argument to teach all Christian children Koine Greek.... which has some point to it.

No, I'm not. I am saying that if they can go to that level, and it means that much to them, and it works, then we can certainly do what is much easier and teach our people the meaning of just the difficult words and passages that are to be found in our holy book.

 

[Radagast]

No, I'm not. I am saying that if they can go to that level, and it means that much to them, and it works, then we can certainly do what is much easier and teach our people the meaning of just the difficult words and passages that are to be found in our holy book.

I don't really disagree with you. I don't think lack of readability should be treated as a positive, but I don't think theological terms should be "dumbed down," and I think "thee" and "thine" should be retained in hymns.

If the KJV was actually a good translation, I'd be much more positive about keeping it. However, readability is still an issue. My experience on CF is that most people using the KJV often misread it, not realising how much the language has changed since 1611.

 

[BNR32FAN]

None of the oldest manuscripts or early Christian Bible quotes have those words.

This seems to have been something that the Church added to the prayer, based on 1 Chronicles 29:11 ("Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.").

Later on (probably around the year 400) somebody added it to the Greek New Testament, to make the Bible match what the Church was doing.

Most modern translations have these words in brackets or in a footnote.



They are all actually additions to later manuscripts of the Bible.

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. Now I have to go research it because my Greek Interlinear also has it. :/

 

[Radagast]

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. Now I have to go research it because my Greek Interlinear also has it. :/

Well, it all depends on which Greek text your interlinear is based on.

Most Greek New Testaments are heavily footnoted to show which manuscripts say what, if there is any doubt -- but interlinears don't usually do that.

The oldest complete Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus (see Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Matthew |) has:

Our Father who art in the heavens: hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven also on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, it all depends on which Greek text your interlinear is based on.

Most Greek New Testaments are heavily footnoted to show which manuscripts say what, if there is any doubt -- but interlinears don't usually do that.

The oldest complete Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus (see Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Matthew |) has:

Our Father who art in the heavens: hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven also on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Thank you so much I will look into that.

 

[Concord1968]

Most languages have between 1-10 versions, with Spanish having around 20ish.

English has 60+ versions. While the majority of other languages will have less than 10 versions, some even less than 5.

It stuck out so I was curious why so many versions and is it neccessary? I can see it causing confusion to new believers.

I have only 2 versions. KJV and ESV. I used to use the NIV when I was brand new, then heard that it was just a commentary of the Bible, I wanted to get the actual word so I got the ESV instead. Then I wanted the original's so I switched the the KJV.

The KJV is most certainly NOT the original.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, it all depends on which Greek text your interlinear is based on.

Most Greek New Testaments are heavily footnoted to show which manuscripts say what, if there is any doubt -- but interlinears don't usually do that.

The oldest complete Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus (see Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Matthew |) has:

Our Father who art in the heavens: hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven also on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

I think it’s a really bad idea for someone to put words in Jesus’ mouth by adding to what He said. I don’t think anyone should have the authority to do that. It’s almost like lying to say this is what Jesus said then knowingly adding words that He didn’t actually say.

 

[Radagast]

I think it’s a really bad idea for someone to put words in Jesus’ mouth by adding to what He said. I don’t think anyone should have the authority to do that. It’s almost like lying to say this is what Jesus said then knowingly adding words that He didn’t actually say.

I'm pretty sure that nobody intended to do that. It seems that first people started adding words from 1 Chronicles 29:11 to the end of the prayer in church, which is a good and biblical thing to do.

And then, at some later time, a scribe copying it out must have though "oh, there's a few lines missing," and copied them into the Bible.

Other additions result from some scribe accidentally adding to one gospel words he remembered from a different gospel.

Then there are some further additions where one scribe seems to have written a pious reflection in the margin of a bible, and a later scribe thought that those words were supposed to be part of the actual text, and added them into his copy.

All well-meaning changes, but inevitable over the centuries. That's why modern translators give the older manuscripts more weight.

 

[Concord1968]

I'm pretty sure that nobody intended to do that. It seems that first people started adding words from 1 Chronicles 29:11 to the end of the prayer in church, which is a good and biblical thing to do.

And then, at some later time, a scribe copying it out must have though "oh, there's a few lines missing," and copied them into the Bible.

Other additions result from some scribe accidentally adding to one gospel words he remembered from a different gospel.

Then there are some further additions where one scribe seems to have written a pious reflection in the margin of a bible, and a later scribe thought that those words were supposed to be part of the actual text, and added them into his copy.

All well-meaning changes, but inevitable over the centuries. That's why modern translators give the older manuscripts more weight.

Scribal harmonization is an issue as well. Two parallel passages that scribes "harmonized" so that they read alike. Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 come to mind.

 

[mark kennedy]

Most languages have between 1-10 versions, with Spanish having around 20ish.

English has 60+ versions. While the majority of other languages will have less than 10 versions, some even less than 5.

It stuck out so I was curious why so many versions and is it neccessary? I can see it causing confusion to new believers.

I have only 2 versions. KJV and ESV. I used to use the NIV when I was brand new, then heard that it was just a commentary of the Bible, I wanted to get the actual word so I got the ESV instead. Then I wanted the original's so I switched the the KJV.

The King James goes back to the Textus Recepticus (Received text). When the Gutenberg press was invented the first book was the Latin Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible. Then the Masoretic Text which were the Hebrew Scriptures. However, the Greek New Testament was still in the scrolls, a Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus produced the Textus Receptus. It went through 6 major revisions that I know of but an early Protestant got a hold of it, William Tyndale was the first one to produce a translation in English, later the Geneva Bible would come along. Just to put it in perspective 85% of the 1611 KJV was identical with the Tyndale Bible. There reason there are so many English translations is because there are so many exegetical scholars in English speaking countries, especially the United States.

That was pretty much the standard until 1881 when Westcott and Hort produced a new Greek New Testament based on modern scholarship. You have to understand, there are tens of thousands of scrolls, textual criticism surrounding their reliability has been a running debate for centuries, not that there is a dimes worth of difference between them. Novum Testamentum Graece, aka Nestle-Aland was an even more modern New Testament Greek. That, among other sources for the Old Testament, was the basis for the NIV. You have two main avenues for an English translation, Textus Recepticus or Nestle-Aland.

i can't get away from the KJV, too much scholarship is inextricably linked to the KJV like the Strong's Concordance. The numbering system Strong came up with is really the only source I have for getting back to lexicon definitions and cross referencing. I think the NIV makes the Old Testament more readable but I simply don't trust modern Biblical scholarship. The New International Version is a fine translation, it's my favorite point of comparison for the KJV when such a thing is needed. I don't really even like the later revisions of the King James by the Cambridge people, the 1769 version is called the standard version for a reason and what most of us would recognize as the old King James.

I'm not a King James only type of a person, but I definitely prefer it as the primary source for my studies. I trust it and I'm rather suspicious of modern translations since they seem a little watered down to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Radagast]

However, the Greek New Testament was still in the scrolls

Scrolls? None of the Greek NT manuscripts we have is a scroll.

The numbering system Strong came up with is really the only source I have for getting back to lexicon definitions and cross referencing

Strong's works for any Greek text. The www.blueletterbible.org website lets you use the KJV and TR or the ESV and Nestle-Aland (mGNT) text.

 

[Radagast]

Scribal harmonization is an issue as well. Two parallel passages that scribes "harmonized" so that they read alike. Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 come to mind.

Yes, but that might not be deliberate. It might be the memory of one passage mixing you up when you're copying the other.

An other kind of scribal error that happens is accidentally replacing a word by a synonym. That doesn't affect meaning, of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

Scrolls? None of the Greek NT manuscripts we have is a scroll.

All of the New Testament was written in scrolls, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be here.

Strong's works for any Greek text. The www.blueletterbible.org website lets you use the KJV and TR or the ESV and Nestle-Aland (mGNT) text.

I'm aware of BLB, I prefer the Strong's numbers, if you have a better way then that's your prerogative.

 

[Radagast]

All of the New Testament was written in scrolls

What's your evidence for that exactly? Any scrolls there might have been are long gone.

Every single NT manuscript we have, going back to the fragment of John from 140 AD is from a book (codex) with double-sided pages.

I'm aware of BLB, I prefer the Strong's numbers, if you have a better way then that's your prerogative.

BLB uses the Strong's numbers. Each Greek verse breakdown gives you Strong's numbers to click on, which then give you lexicon entries and word usage, e.g. G3586