Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[Bible_Reader]

I don’t know of many AMERICAN Anglican (i.e. Protestant Episcopal) churches that still use the KJV in their liturgy, nor recommend it over newer and better - MUCH better - translations for private reading, but in any case, as far as I know, all Anglican KJV’s include the Deuterocanonicals/Apochrypha.

The last I heard, the most commonly used Anglican version is the New English Bible, but this may vary locally.

Actually, there is an Episcopalian church right around the corner from me that uses the KJV!

The KJV is allowed by Canon II.2 of the Episcopal Church USA (which you can check here.) The other editions allowed are the RV, ASV, RSV, TEV, NAB, NIV, NJB, and NRSV. Some “Anglo-Catholic” churches use the Catholic translations of the Bible such as the NAB, JB, NJB (and NRSV, if you consider that a Catholic translation.)

And the KJV is also widely used by “Continuing Anglican” churches. Some Anglican/Episcopal churches do use the version with the Deuterocanonicals (such as this one) but in truth, some do not.

The *New English Bible *was superseded by the Revised English Bible in 1989. The New English Bible is barely in print – as far as I know, there is only one edition (without Deuterocanonicals) still in print. But the most widely used translations are the NRSV (Oxford even publishes and NRSVBook of Common Prayer) and NIV. Even in the UK, the Revised English Bible is a bit scarce.

 

[beeliner]

1. It is true there are those who keep re-doing it so it reads the way they want it to but that isn’t the way it should be done.
2. With the KJV, at least they translated it from the original Hebrew and Greek and did not depend on a certain translation.

1. That is the very antithesis of Bible scholarship. There have been several versions that fit that description, but those are generally termed paraphrases and make no claim for authenticity. Their stated purpose is to make the Bible more interesting and familiar to those who find the more authentic translations boring and/or difficult to read. Some titles that come to mind are The Book, The Word, The Teenager’s Bible, The Reader’s Digest Bible, and there have been several others, perhaps some I’m not even aware of as I have been living in a non-English speaking country for several years, having only recently returned to the good ol’ U S of A.
2. They used those languages as their primary sources but also several secondary and tertiary sources, notably the LXX and the Vulgate.

The bottom line is that we have much better source material today, and most modern translations are the result of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is minimized.

In my opinion, the state of the art is still the Anchor Bible, published by Doubleday, the product of the best Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant schorship available, and which is now undergoing a major revision.
Bible Reader:

Actually, there is an Episcopalian church right around the corner from me that uses the KJV!

The KJV is allowed by Canon II.2 of the Episcopal Church…

Oh, I didn’t say it wasn’t allowed, only that I didn’t know of many that still used it, and I still doubt that the percentage is very high, especially among the ‘higher’ and ‘broad’-er Episcopal congregations.

And by the way, thank you for the additional information on the NEB.

 

[Old_Scholar]

beeliner

The bottom line is that we have much better source material today, and most modern translations are the result of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is minimized.

What is this “better source” you speak about and where did it come from? Have we found more ancient documents than we already had?

 

[juliamajor]

Lots of document pertaining to scripture, NT,OT early christianity have been found after the KJV translation. Dead sea scrolls, Nag hammadi library-.Knowledge didn’t come to a stand still after KJV.

 

[beeliner]

beelinerWhat is this “better source” you speak about and where did it come from? Have we found more ancient documents than we already had?

Are you joking? Since 1611?

Only by the hundreds - maybe thousands. And it’s a continuing process; that is why, as I mentioned, the Anchor Bible, cutting-edge-state-of-the-art when first published, is now being revised from cover to cover.

The magazine Biblical Archaeology Review keeps the public informed of such discoveries bi-monthly. Here is a link to its website:

www.bib-arch.org

 

[Old_Scholar]

Are you joking? Since 1611?

Only by the hundreds - maybe thousands. And it’s a continuing process; that is why, as I mentioned, the Anchor Bible, cutting-edge-state-of-the-art when first published, is now being revised from cover to cover.

The magazine Biblical Archaeology Review keeps the public informed of such discoveries bi-monthly. Here is a link to its website:

www.bib-arch.org

You made the claim. Show us what this “newly discovered” document is?

All the Dead Sea Scrolls did was confirm that the KJV had the book of Isaiah correct.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Lots of document pertaining to scripture, NT,OT early christianity have been found after the KJV translation. Dead sea scrolls, Nag hammadi library-.Knowledge didn’t come to a stand still after KJV.

What are some of those documents and when and where were they discovered?

 

[Bible_Reader]

Folks, this thread has become a troll thread.

We’ve given Old Scholar more than enough information for him to explore on his own (at any library or on google) if he is seriously interested.

 

[beeliner]

You made the claim. Show us what this “newly discovered” document is?

All the Dead Sea Scrolls did was confirm that the KJV had the book of Isaiah correct.

Huh? Did I say anything about ‘newly discovered’? Putting a phrase in quotes generally means that you are quoting. Where did I say that?

The KJV was revised over a dozen times during the first half-century of its existence.

Most of the revisions through the centuries since the KJV have been philological - we have much better knowledge of the original languages now. A lot of the KJV simply doesn’t make sense because it was mistranslated.

Here’s an example, picked more or less at random:

Habakkuk 2:6: (KJV) "Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! "

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Here is the verse from the online NET (New English Translation):

‘The one who accumulates what does not belong to him is as good as dead
(How long will this go on?) – he who gets rich by extortion!’

…and from the NRSV:

‘Alas for you who heap up what is not your own!’ How long will you load yourselves with goods taken in pledge?

…and from the NAB:

Woe to him who stores up what is not his: how long can it last! he loads himself down with debts.

So the warning concerns usury, though it is not completely certain whether it is aimed at the userer or his client or both - but in any case hardly evident from the reference to ‘thick clay’.

Multiply this one example by thousands and you have some idea of why revision occurs.
Bible Reader:

Folks, this thread has become a troll thread.

We’ve given Old Scholar more than enough information for him to explore on his own (at any library or on google) if he is seriously interested.

Well, some are trolls and some are just lazy. The history of Bible revision is a fascinating one, and well worth studying by anyone seriously interested in Bible history.

 

[BRB]

All the Dead Sea Scrolls did was confirm that the KJV had the book of Isaiah correct.

Thats ALL they did ?

I think any bonafide ‘Old Scholar’ of ancient writings would be more impressed with what they have provided.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Huh? Did I say anything about ‘newly discovered’? Putting a phrase in quotes generally means that you are quoting. Where did I say that?

The KJV was revised over a dozen times during the first half-century of its existence.

Most of the revisions through the centuries since the KJV have been philological - we have much better knowledge of the original languages now. A lot of the KJV simply doesn’t make sense because it was mistranslated.

Here’s an example, picked more or less at random: What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Here is the verse from the online NET (New English Translation):…and from the NRSV:…and from the NAB:So the warning concerns usury, though it is not completely certain whether it is aimed at the userer or his client or both - but in any case hardly evident from the reference to ‘thick clay’.

Multiply this one example by thousands and you have some idea of why revision occurs.Well, some are trolls and some are just lazy. The history of Bible revision is a fascinating one, and well worth studying by anyone seriously interested in Bible history.

**If you were a student of the Bible, you would know exactly what that verse means in Habakkuk. It isn’t difficult if you have read what was written…

What we have is not considered ours unless it is what we have come by honestly. Remember that when you read this verse.

Riches are nothing but clay, thick clay. Gold and silver are but white and yellow earth. Those who travel though thick clay, are hindered and dirtied in their journey, as are those who go through the world in the midst of an abundance of wealth.

The only reason to change the KJV here was to make it easier to read for those who are lazy readers. If you are a scholar, then you would have learned how to read it without making it so easy, it changes the meaning. That’s what happens—most of the changes change the original meaning.

Habakkuk is an interesting book and you should read it all sometimes. You would be amazed at what God has shown him.

And of course, I am sure you know God gave him visions that caused him to write this???**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Thats ALL they did ?

I think any bonafide ‘Old Scholar’ of ancient writings would be more impressed with what they have provided.

**Oh I am very impressed with them but they did not change the Scriptures as you indicated.

And go back and read your post #45 to see where you indicated changes were being found continuously.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Folks, this thread has become a troll thread.

We’ve given Old Scholar more than enough information for him to explore on his own (at any library or on google) if he is seriously interested.

Actually you haven’t mentioned anything but the dead sea scrolls, and the first parts of them were discovered in 1947, with the last of them found in 1979. They gave us nothing we did not know before, but rather confirmed what we already knew. You keep “saying” there are documents but then present nothing.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Actually you haven’t mentioned anything but the dead sea scrolls, and the first parts of them were discovered in 1947, with the last of them found in 1979. They gave us nothing we did not know before, but rather confirmed what we already knew. You keep “saying” there are documents but then present nothing.

Actually, they gave us the Deuterocanonical books in Hebrew. The Greek Septuagint contained these books, but were reject around 90 AD because there was no Hebrew translation at the time.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is true there are those who keep re-doing it so it reads the way they want it to but that isn’t the way it should be done. With the KJV, at least they translated it from the original Hebrew and Greek and did not depend on a certain translation.

This does not answer the question of the OP, how do you determine WHICH translation is correct. OS, you referred to an OT verse, which is written in an archaic and non-sensical English. YOU, as a Bible scholar found its meaning obvious. What about a person who is not as intelligent as you? Would it be possible they misread it and come up with an incorrect interpretation? Language evolves, therefore translations are inevitable.

The original Latin Vulgate was a translation “for the poeple” as Latin was the language of the day. By the middle ages French, English, Italian, etc. had evolved from Latin.

Luke 1:34 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Could this cause confusion? Yes, we all know what it means, but it is still incorrect English. If you want to use English of 1611, why not just go back to Latin?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Notice the verse I have highlighted above. The Scripture does not condemn divorce and remarriage. It only condemns divorce if it is not because of adultery. If a spouse commits adultery, then the other spouse may divorce and remarry, as long as he/she marries one who has not violated this rule either.

Contrary to belief, this verse does not condemn divorce completely.

Which King James Version are you using? The one I found online says

Mathew 5:
*32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. *

Is there more than one King James Version?

NAB says.’
Matthew 5:32 *
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (**unless the marriage is unlawful) *causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery
You are saying “except for adultery.” Which translation is correct?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Has the Roman Catholic Church “authorized” a certain translation?

The other poster was referring to Bibles that have the imprimatur of a Bishop (or, more recently, a National Conference of Bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church – that is Bibles that are authorized by the Roman Church.

I believe the reason is to ensure the translation is error free.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This does not answer the question of the OP, how do you determine WHICH translation is correct. OS, you referred to an OT verse, which is written in an archaic and non-sensical English. YOU, as a Bible scholar found its meaning obvious. What about a person who is not as intelligent as you? Would it be possible they misread it and come up with an incorrect interpretation? Language evolves, therefore translations are inevitable.

Of course theologians and scholars will study the oldest versions available and in the original language when possible. You have to understand how the language of the day was used. I agree that an unlearned person would require help, that’s what study groups and Pastors are for. Not simply to ask the correct interpretation but to study and discuss it. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of commentaries on Scripture, so the answer can be found if one wants it badly enough. However, when you have a pre-supposition to over come, or are told that you are not to study, then it’s hard.

The original Latin Vulgate was a translation “for the poeple” as Latin was the language of the day. By the middle ages French, English, Italian, etc. had evolved from Latin.

Luke 1:34 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Could this cause confusion? Yes, we all know what it means, but it is still incorrect English. If you want to use English of 1611, why not just go back to Latin?

This was not incorrect language back in those days. It was common knowledge that "know" meant to know sexually. It was understood by all then and that is why it was written that way. Any student knows that. I do not advocate anyone who does not have a good knowledge of reading such languages to just pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it. That is easy enough for the learned but not for the ignorant. Any well educated person should not have any problem with it however. Incidentally, did you know the Bible says peter was ignorant, as well as his brother? And they seemed to do fine.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Which King James Version are you using? The one I found online says

Mathew 5:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Is there more than one King James Version?

**Yes there is the KJV, NKJV and the 2000KJV but I believe they Will agree with your listing of this verse.

This verse says that the only reason a man can “put away” (divorce) his wife is for the cause of fornication. That would mean she committed adultery and he is allowed to “put her away,” or divorce her for that. That is the only legal way, “spiritually speaking” for a man to divorce a woman.

Now your Douay Rheims says the same thing. But because the Roman Catholic Church does not accept divorce at all, (though that is not Scriptural) and insists that a person have their marriage annulled. That’s very strange that a marriage can be annulled even after many years. That’s why King James had the King James Version made in the first place. If you don’t know the story, I will be glad to tell you.

But then you list the New American Bible. Notice that it does not use the term “fornication” but instead uses the term “unless the marriage is unlawful.” I am sure you must be aware that this Bible is worded this way to accommodate the Roman Catholic view of this verse which requires annulment in order to remarry. Your Douay Rheims has the correct rendering of this verse. This is a good example of what I mentioned before; using the Scripture to fit your agenda. That is what the NAB has done. It was made by the Catholic Biblical Association of America and I am not condemning it any more than I am the other “newer” English versions because they all make changes for a purpose.**

NAB says.’
Matthew 5:32 *
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (**unless the marriage is unlawful) ***causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery
You are saying “except for adultery.” Which translation is correct?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I believe the reason is to ensure the translation is error free.

**It’s very hard to say that a Bible is error free or that one has errors since we no longer have the originals. Fortunately the Dead Sea Scrolls showed us that what we have today is very accurate in most cases. The errors are minor.

I don’t believe there can be one Bible “authorized” more than others. I believe each church has a Bible they like to teach from and as long as it is as accurate as possible, has withstood the test of time, and has been used successfully for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, then I believe people can find the truth.

Personally however, I put no faith in any Bible that has been produced in the last 100 years, and then it must have been done by someone in authority—not just someone who wanted it to be easier to read. Christ never said anything would be easy…**

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)