Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[qui_est_ce]

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.

qui:

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?

You answered my question out of context by omitting the above. By today’s standards it is not correct.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Last time I was there, St. Thomas, Fifth Avenue was still using the KJV.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You answered my question out of context by omitting the above. By today’s standards it is not correct.

How many people today speak Latin? I mean not only here but in the entire world?

Perhaps you could translate that verse in today’s language that suits you and still means the same thing???

 

[mercygate]

As for manuscript recoveries since 1611, what about the Codex Sinaiticus? Discovered in 1844? Hmmmm?

 

[qui_est_ce]

OS:

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.

fornication and adultery are not the same thing.
OS:

Now your Douay Rheims says the same thing. But because the Roman Catholic Church does not accept divorce at all,

Luke and Mark do not have this exception.

](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. 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.

What is your purpose in posting this?

 

[qui_est_ce]

How many people today speak Latin? I mean not only here but in the entire world?

Perhaps you could translate that verse in today’s language that suits you and still means the same thing???

I speak Latin. Catholics of my generation had to learn Latin. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. Bible Scholars all know Latin.

Do you speak Olde Tyme Inglisch?

 

[BRB]

**I Fortunately the Dead Sea Scrolls showed us that what we have today is very accurate in most cases. The errors are minor.

…**

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/natur/nature-smiley-019.gif

Yes … a most important benefit of the Scrolls.

Now even those who formerly had doubts … must accept scripture as accurate.

 

[beeliner]

**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???**

Well, in the first place, the verse does not refer to riches, but to living on borrowed money instead of the fruits of one’s own labor. If you used a good translation you would know that.

Secondly, the Bible is not supposed to be a guessing game nor a contest to find hidden or obscure meanings, nor is it intended to be read only by scholars, NOR is everyone who identifies him/herself as a Bible scholar worthy of that title.

I do not know Hebrew so I cannot read the original. If it indeed says ‘thick clay’ in the Hebrew, that was an idiom of the time which, like most such phrases, loses or changes its meaning in translation and also over time.

In English, a good example of the same or a similar phenomenon is God giving Adam ‘an help meet for him’. You and I know that ‘meet’ meant ‘suitable’ when that was written, but lots of KJV readers don’t, thus the word ‘helpmate’ or even ‘helpmeet’, meaning a wife, has entered the English language, to its detriment!

It is the evolution of language over time that changes the meaning - Bible scholars attempt to preserve the original meaning, just the opposite of what you are claiming. That’s why you won’t find any modern translations referring to a ‘help meet’.

And I have no idea whether God gave Habakkuk visions or even if the book was written by one person or by a committee. If you wish to believe that as a matter of religious faith, that is certainly your prerogative.

 

[cfrancis]

Bump for Cal

Actually, [the Dead Sea Scrolls] 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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

As for manuscript recoveries since 1611, what about the Codex Sinaiticus? Discovered in 1844? Hmmmm?

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 true enough but the writing has been dated to 340 A.D. It was written then. It is one of the few extant copies we have.

 

[Old_Scholar]

fornication and adultery are not the same thing.

Oh really…what do you think fornication is for a married person??? Define for us fornication and adultery.

Originally Posted by OS
(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. 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.

Luke and Mark do not have this exception. What is your purpose in posting this?

Because you posted the verses from the NAB that said different. I want to be sure you understand that a person CAN divorce if their spouse commits adultery. The NAB version uses the term I quoted before and it is not accurate…The Douay Rheims and the KJV are accurate…

 

[Old_Scholar]

I speak Latin. Catholics of my generation had to learn Latin. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. Bible Scholars all know Latin.

Do you speak Olde Tyme Inglisch?

If you speak Latin every day to everyone, how many understand you? Scholars and most theologians speak several languages. It helps to speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic if you want to study the Scriptures thoroughly. Many can read it but don’t speak it very well.

My ancestors spoke Olde Tyme Inglisch. I’m afraid I do not very well.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, in the first place, the verse does not refer to riches, but to living on borrowed money instead of the fruits of one’s own labor. If you used a good translation you would know that.

Thanks but I have a very good translation. The Hebrew word used here for increaseth is rabah, which means to multiply, be or become great, be or become many or become much. Whether it is borrowed money or earned riches, the result is the same.

The word for ladeth is kabad and it means to be rich, be weighty, be hard or be burdensome.

Now the word used for clay is 'abtiyt and the meaning of it is weight of pledges, or heavy debt.

Secondly, the Bible is not supposed to be a guessing game nor a contest to find hidden or obscure meanings, nor is it intended to be read only by scholars, NOR is everyone who identifies him/herself as a Bible scholar worthy of that title.

I do not know Hebrew so I cannot read the original. If it indeed says ‘thick clay’ in the Hebrew, that was an idiom of the time which, like most such phrases, loses or changes its meaning in translation and also over time.

But taken in context I believe my initial assessment was correct in its meaning. You have to read the entire chapter tho’.

In English, a good example of the same or a similar phenomenon is God giving Adam ‘an help meet for him’. You and I know that ‘meet’ meant ‘suitable’ when that was written, but lots of KJV readers don’t, thus the word ‘helpmate’ or even ‘helpmeet’, meaning a wife, has entered the English language, to its detriment!

**There again, the Hebrew word used was *'ezer ***and it means help, succour, one who helps. Succour means to help or relieve. I believe there is enough Scripture elsewhere that describes woman’s duties much better however.

It is the evolution of language over time that changes the meaning - Bible scholars attempt to preserve the original meaning, just the opposite of what you are claiming. That’s why you won’t find any modern translations referring to a ‘help meet’.

There is no reason for modern versions to change the words used here. They are quite sufficient. Any change in the meaning of them would not be what woman was intended to be.

And I have no idea whether God gave Habakkuk visions or even if the book was written by one person or by a committee. If you wish to believe that as a matter of religious faith, that is certainly your prerogative.

Well Habakkuk made the claim that God answered his call and told him to see the vision and that is in Scripture, so I would believe that God did give him a vision or visions.

If you are going to doubt what we read in the Scriptures, then you must not believe God gave us His Word…

 

[Ron_Conte]

people have a tendency to try to say that the version of the Bible that they use is THE version: the best, the most definitive, better than all others, the height of Biblical scholarship, etc., and also to denigrate all other versions. And the version that they choose as best is usually one from the 20th century. So what did the Church do before that one and only best version was made? Was the whole Church languishing for lack of that one version?

Certainly not. The truth is that no version, no translation, no set of manuscripts, no edition of the Bible is perfect, nor best, nor definitive, nor can the Church, once it acheives said version dispense with all others. The Church needs many different versions of the Bible, in many languages and no version is the one, the only, the best, the most definitive. It always has been this way, and it probably always will be this way.

As for those who say this version is ‘approved’ or ‘authorized’ : there is very little difference between the Wycliffe version (Wycliffe was a heretic) and the original Douai Rheims version (used by the Church for more than a century, then updated by Challoner and used for centuries more). The NRSV was rejected for use in the Mass by the Holy See, widely criticized for excessive use of inclusive language, but the Canadian Bishops eventually obtained approval for its use in the Mass.

 

[cfrancis]

Well Habakkuk made the claim that God answered his call and told him to see the vision and that is in Scripture, so I would believe that God did give him a vision or visions.

If you are going to doubt what we read in the Scriptures, then you must not believe God gave us His Word…

Which really brings us back to the topic of the thread: who or what determines the Authenticity of a Bible version?
This question really begins at the beginning, doesn’t it?
Just because a book claims inspiration does not necessarily make it so (see Book of Mormon, et al).
Likewise, because a book does not claim inspiration does not necessarily exclude it (see gospel of Matthew, et al).
Fast forward 1600 years and several languages later, and the question is even more relevant.

Who’s the authority?

 

[beeliner]

1. Thanks but I have a very good translation.
2. Whether it is borrowed money or earned riches, the result is the same.
3. The word for ladeth is kabad and it means to be rich, be weighty, be hard or be burdensome.
4. Now the word used for clay is 'abtiyt and the meaning of it is weight of pledges, or heavy debt.
5. There again, the Hebrew word used was 'ezer and it means help, succour, one who helps. Succour means to help or relieve. I believe there is enough Scripture elsewhere that describes woman’s duties much better however.
6. There is no reason for modern versions to change the words used here. They are quite sufficient. Any change in the meaning of them would not be what woman was intended to be.
7. Well Habakkuk made the claim that God answered his call and told him to see the vision and that is in Scripture, so I would believe that God did give him a vision or visions.
8. If you are going to doubt what we read in the Scriptures, then you must not believe God gave us His Word…

1. Care to name it?
2. You can’t be serious! There would be all the difference in the world! Is there a difference between living in a house that is paid off and living in one with an oppressive mortgage?
3. Well, I’m not sure that wealth is always so burdensome. The late Sophie Tucker once said, “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”
4. That was my understanding also, but having admitted to not knowing Hebrew, I left open the possibility that the word used may have literally meant clay. If so, it was obviously used idiomatically. Hadakkuk is not warning his readers against clay.

If it means what you say, which I do not doubt, then it was mistranslated by the editors of the KJV, one of many hundreds of such instances. Perhaps the word for clay is similar.

1. I am not questioning ‘help’ but rather ‘meet’. Since the meaning of ‘suitable’ is now archaic, no modern translation would use that word.
2. See 2; also, some of the happiest marriages I know are those with an assertive wife and a submissive husband, relatively speaking of course. But I do not question that there are happy marriages with the opposite arrangement. This could be the subject of a whole new thread, or perhaps has been.
3. Fair enough, as long as you label that as belief rather than fact.
4. In that regard, the previous discussion brings up the whole subject, beyond the scope of this thread, of whether male and female humans were created together, as God gave His Word to the author of Genesis 1, or male early on and female last of all, as God inspired the author of Genesis 2:4b ff.

 

[mercygate]

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 true enough but the writing has been dated to 340 A.D. It was written then. It is one of the few extant copies we have.

You had implied that the manuscripts used by the KJV translators in 1607 were the “best” ever. I pointed that the single most significant find in Scripture studies EVER was unknown before the mid-19th Century.

Since then many manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts have been recovered. The textual variations have been compared and assessed.

The manuscript recoveries have made it clear, for example, that the Johannine comma was not part of the original text.

Quoting to me the dating of Codex Alpha at 340 does nothing to support your assertion.

 

[mercygate]

Which really brings us back to the topic of the thread: who or what determines the Authenticity of a Bible version?
This question really begins at the beginning, doesn’t it?
Just because a book claims inspiration does not necessarily make it so (see Book of Mormon, et al).
Likewise, because a book does not claim inspiration does not necessarily exclude it (see gospel of Matthew, et al).
Fast forward 1600 years and several languages later, and the question is even more relevant.

Who’s the authority?

Glad you brought us back to the topic of “authenticity” of a Bible version. Perhaps the question might been better posed regarding a “translation” rather than a 'version." KJV qualifies as a translation because the translators really were attempting to do justice to the text. Before the AV, people were working off of the Vulgate or the Septuagint. The AV boasted of being translated “out of the original languages.”

But as for the Authenticity of a Bible Version," the best place to start for determining THAT today, in modern times, would be to measure a version by its fidelity to the original texts, and by “original” texts, one would mean the consensus of the most ancient manuscripts. This would be apart from any individual Church authorization. Authorization is different from authenticity.

“Versions” tend to be aimed at audiences. “Good News” tries to reach people with no more than a fourth grade reading ability. RSV aims for fidelity to the original languages. NAB goes for fidelity and oral read-ability. NIV is a dynamic equivalence effort that sacrifices textual fidelity to ?? comprehensibility.

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh really…what do you think fornication is for a married person??? Define for us fornication and adultery.

Fornication: Specifically, sex between two unmarried persons.

Adultery: Extramarital sex. These are the Biblical definitions.

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

 

[sambos671]

Glad you brought us back to the topic of “authenticity” of a Bible version. Perhaps the question might been better posed regarding a “translation” rather than a 'version." KJV qualifies as a translation because the translators really were attempting to do justice to the text. Before the AV, people were working off of the Vulgate or the Septuagint. The AV boasted of being translated “out of the original languages.”

But as for the Authenticity of a Bible Version," the best place to start for determining THAT today, in modern times, would be to measure a version by its fidelity to the original texts, and by “original” texts, one would mean the consensus of the most ancient manuscripts. This would be apart from any individual Church authorization. Authorization is different from authenticity.

“Versions” tend to be aimed at audiences. “Good News” tries to reach people with no more than a fourth grade reading ability. RSV aims for fidelity to the original languages. NAB goes for fidelity and oral read-ability. NIV is a dynamic equivalence effort that sacrifices textual fidelity to ?? comprehensibility.

It probably has already been mentioned on this thread. But I think the Catholic position on this question is that the Authority of the Bible comes from the Church. It makes sence since before the NT was writen the faith was transimited orally. Protestants would say from God directly (not that catholics would disagree with this) . Unlike the Protestants, Catholics would say that they agree with Jerome in that scriptures can be interpreted on many levels. Most of which is passed on through the church much like Rabbinic Judaism considers its oral tradition to understand the Torah fully. Protestants would say its self explanitory. If you want to get into the discussion of translations its kind of a mute point when you understand how the bible came together and the church decided on canon. KJV only people are not really versed in the origins of the scripture and state that its authenticity is based on the Textus Recepticus which is commonly known as having errors and Erasimus (catholic) took part in its translation. They also forget that the first KJB had the apocrypha (dueterocanonical). Strangely the early christians also took seriously works like 1 Enoch, Book of Jubeliees, and the book of Jashar. This can be seen in the book of Jude and the Revelations of John. Which has me personally moving towards the Catholic view.