Which is the Bible?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Walls, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never doubted that King James was the Bible, but what really disturbs me as someone pointed out on the actual 1611 was the images. Who put them on there? Was it King James or the writers?

    What Bible was used before the King James? How many version were there prior to the King James? If we didn't have the modern versions which one of the old ones would you say is the word of God?

    NOTICE I AM ASKING QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE INFORMATION AND NOT DEBATE!
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    to add a another disturbing question:

    who put God's WORDS in italics to suggest that it wasn't there in the original? was it the mindworshipping Anglican scholars or their stockinged king?

    apparently, it was a bad habit that generations of KJB revisions up to the present continued to put MORE n MORE of God's Words into italics, thus reducing the no. of "confirmed," un-italicised words in the text.

    i know of NO MV that attacks the text using italics.
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not get your head out of the sand and quit aping what others told you.All of the 200+ conflicting "bibles" simply do not show them;but they are there..At least the KJB translators were HONEST enough to show them...
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guys, Walls is asking some questions here. She said she is not looking for debate. Let's take her at her word and answer the questions.

    First, King James himself had nothing to do with the actual translation. He was simply the king who sponsored it.

    As for the Bible used before the KJV, there were several. (I assume you are asking about English Bibles.) Most common was probably the Geneva Bible, though there was a Coverdale Bible, Matthews Bible, and several others. Someone better on the history can tell us all of them. The Geneva Bible continued to used after the KJV was available.
     
  5. j_barner2000

    j_barner2000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    there was at least the Geneva and If I am not mistaken Wycliffe and Webster were either just before or contemporaries of the KJV. I personally use a parallel format and have the KJV, NASB and one of the other old texts up and another modern version in the Bible software that I use to study from. I have seen differences in the numbering of the chapters and verses, but these were added to the origonal texts so don't count as important as far as I can tell. All provide the same message. I am so tired of the old arguements I see here for KJV Onlyism.
    As far as I can tell if you say billy and I are going to the store... or me and billie are going shopping... these both convey the same message but perhaps a different dialect. when we spend so much time argueing about which translation is right, we diminish our ability to help each other grow in His grace and reach the lost.
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    These need not disturb you.

    Who knows. Why does it matter?

    I assume you mean in English. [​IMG] Used by who? Puritans used the Geneva. Anglicans and others used the Bishop's. Catholics used the Douay-Rheims. The Great Bible was also popular, as was Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles. Prior to all these, we have Tyndale's and Wycliffe's.

    KJV-only author D.A. Waite lists 16 complete English Bibles before the KJV, and 28 New Testaments.

    BTW, the 1881 Revised Version, which was the first of the "modern versions", was the 72nd English Translation, according to Waite (and 131st if you're counting just New Testaments).

    All of them.

    God bless,
    Brian
     
  7. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is something to think about regarding the italiized words: Should they be there?

    Deut. 8:3....that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
    Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Notice in Deut. the word "word" is italicized. Should it be there? Jesus put the word "word" there in the N.T.

    At the least, the translators were honest in putting them in and not making them subtle changes.

    There were many early translations of the Bible, but I believe the King James Bible was the Superior Translation because of how it got to us. (Texts, Translators, Technique)
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have a hard time reading ArcticBound??? Was there something in the title that led you to believe this thread was about italics???

    Honor the request of Walls and take your italic conversation somewhere else. Start your own thread.
     
  9. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    A bit touchy :confused:

    Some one brought it up in this forum, I recall! Sorry about making you mad :mad: .
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even after the advent of the printing press, books were very expensive compared to the average person's resources. Covers were often very ornate.

    Awhile back, there was a documentary on one of the educational channels about the history of the Bible. The handwritten Bibles were very decorated with art. Some of the art was even erotic which I found indeed disturbing.

    They apparently thought that beautifying the Bible was desirable. With all of the respect for icons/images/rites carried over from the RCC to many Protestant churches, it isn't surprising that all kinds of imagery would be employed.

    The Geneva was preferred by those that we would most identify with: Puritans, Baptists, Separatists, and Independents. They rejected the KJV early on and continued to use the Geneva.

    Apparently, the CoE wanted to standardize the use of the KJV and made it a High Commission crime to print, bind, or distribute any other version. The monarch and thus the church held control over the English press. I saw an article that I was unable to check out completely awhile back that said that Baptists even had a black market set up to print and import Genevas from Holland. But eventually, the CoE effort had its desired effect and the only Bible available within the British Empire was the one "authorized" by the Church of England, known as Episcopalians in the US.

    I have checked out what I post here as well as I am able. I have more interest than time concerning church/Bible history. If anyone can show where my information is factually wrong, I would greatly appreciate it.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I cannot answer for sure who placed the illustrations on the cover of the early copies of the AV 1611, but I would suspect that it was the printer, Robert Barker, who was given exclusive printing rights for the AV by the king. However, the translators and the king had to approve the edition before it was released to the public.

    The Geneva Bible, first printed in 1560, immediately preceeded the AV. The Boshop's Bible, first printed in 1568, was around, but it didn't become the everyday Bible of the people as did the GB, most likely because the BB was quite expensive. So were the first copies of the AV.

    The GB was printed until C. 1644; by that time the AV had replaced it as the everyday Bible in England.

    As for Bibles before the AV-The earliest known translations of the Scriptures were made by a bard named caedmon who lived in the 7th C. & SANG the NT Scriptures, which were sometimes copied by someone in the audience. During this time, the Venerable Bede, from whom we learn of Caedmon, was working on a written English translation, but he died before his translation was done. In the 700s, Aldheim translated the entire Latin Vulgate into English

    In 1384, John Wycliffe hand-wrote a complete English Bible translation, which was clandestinely copied & spread, as the Roman Catholic Church was violently opposed to the common man's having his own Bible in his own tongue. However, like the very early translations mentioned above, Wycliffe's Bible was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Oxford Synod tried hard to suppress the Wycliffe Bible, but without success.

    In 1516, a Dutchman named Erasmus Desiderius completed a Greek collation of the NT from the known ancient manuscripts to which he was able to gain access. This work is known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. William Tyndale used the TR, the Latin Vulgate, Luther's German translation, and as many ancient Greek manuscripts as he could obtain to make a complete English NT in 1525. This work is the basis for virtually all English versions of the New Testament which followed. In fact, the AV New Testament follows Tyndale's work closely.

    Bear in mind that all the translators from Wycliffe to the Geneva translators worked at great peril to their lives, as the RCC was almost all-powerful in England until the death of Queen Mary in 1558-and the RCC was VERY opposed to the Bible's being in English.

    In 1536, Tyndale was strangled & his body burnt at the stake for heresy. Shortly thereafter, King Henry VIII broke with the RCC over his marriages, and he allowed the Bible to be printed & distributed in English. The two most-used versions at that time were those produced by Myles Coverdale, a student of Tyndale's(1535), and the so-called Matthews Bible 0f 1537. Both were complete Bibles, with the Apocrypha. In 1539, the Great Bible appeared, so named because of its physical size. It is basically a Matthews Bible, with the Apocrypha placed into an "appendix". This was the FIRST AUTHORIZED VERSION, authorized for public use by Henry VIII.

    In 1560, the Geneva Bible was first printed. Its translators included the above-mentioned Coverdale. John Whittingham, and John Foxe, who wrote Foxe's Book of Martyrs, to name a few. Under Queen Elizabeth I, this version quickly became the "standard" of the English people. Soon after, the Archbishop of Canterbury found fault with the copious footnotes of the GB and suggested that all the bishops get together and revise the GB. This resulted in the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which, while becoming the "official" Anglican Church version, did NOT replace the GB as "the people's choice".

    In various parts of the British Isles, all those Bibles, from Tyndale's onward, remained in use for many years, being slowly replaced by the AV 1611 as people recognized it as being the best translation in the English current for its time, and the price per copy dropped enough so the average working joe could afford it.

    You may verify what I've typed at:

    http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html

    and

    http://www.evangelizeamerica.org/theology/bible_history.htm
     
  12. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    In 1536, Tyndale was strangled & his body burnt at the stake for heresy. Shortly thereafter, King Henry VIII broke with the RCC over his marriages, and he allowed the Bible to be printed & distributed in English.

    Isn't that an interesting fact that divorce and remarriage had an impact on the allowing of translations for the common folk!

    Awhile back, there was a documentary on one of the educational channels about the history of the Bible. The handwritten Bibles were very decorated with art. Some of the art was even erotic which I found indeed disturbing.

    My mother's Bible, which is quite old, has some very graphic renditions of paintings especially in the more 'graphic' books like Song of Solomon. Certainly pictures we would not allow to be posted on this board.

    Diane
     
  13. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all that information. Pastor Larry, thanks for the respect. ;)

    Diane, I know what you mean about the art. I have a copy of my grandparents bible, which is a King James with parallels of nasb and rsv and it has pictures of paintings that are very risque. I don't know that I would ever let my children see this. If it wasn't for the fact that it was my grandparents I would probably get rid of it.

    Robycop, What is the Apocrophya (sp)?

    Also, in the NT it talks about other epistle's Paul wrote but aren't in the Bible. Where did these go?
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Walls:
    Robycop, What is the Apocrophya (sp)?

    From Web Definitions:

    A collection of some nineteen books written after the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and before the first book of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). It is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the inspired cannon of the Bible, but is rejected by most Protestant denominations. These books are:

    III Esdras (also known as 1 Esdras, or Esdras A)

    IV Esdras (also known as 2 Esdras, or Esdras B)

    Tobit (also known as Tobias)

    Judith

    Additions to the book of Esther

    The Wisdom of Solomon

    Sirach (also known as the Ben Sira, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, or Eccelesiasticus)

    Baruch

    The letter of Jeremiah

    Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children

    Susanna

    Bel and the Dragon

    The Prayer of Manasseh

    1 Maccabees

    2 Maccabees

    3 Maccabees

    4 Maccabees

    Psalm 1512

    The first KJVs contained several of these books. While they're not Scripture, they are of great value in learning of the mindsets of many of the Jews between Malachi's time & that of Jesus. You can read them at

    http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apocrypha.htm

    But I don't necessarily agree with everything at this site. I refer to it ONLY for the fact that it contains modern-English translations of the Apocrypha.

    Also, in the NT it talks about other epistle's Paul wrote but aren't in the Bible. Where did these go?

    I don't know what became of them, but evidently God didn't intend for them to become Scripture, and far as I know, they simply turned to dust. Most likely, they were about more mundane things such as the everyday operation of the churches in obtaining food, etc. & didn't contain any instructions from Jesus.

    Although Peter called Paul's letters Scripture, it's plain to see that GOD chose which ones actually became Scripture. We don't know if Peter was referring to all of Paul's letters, or just the ones that are Scripture now. I lean towards the former.

    Also, it's plain that there were other books of Kings & Chronicles written, besides those that made Scripture, and, far as I know, are lost. Proof? In these Scriptures:

    2 Kings 24:5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

    2 Chronicles 36:8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, the abominations which he did, and what was found against him, indeed they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. Then Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place.

    You can see that the rest of Jehoiakim's notable deeds are NOT found in the books of Kings and Chronicles which DID make Scripture. Since those deeds of Jehoiakim are MENTIONED in Scripture but not FOUND in Scripture, they evidently were written in other works which God did NOT choose as Scripture, and eventually vanished.

    I hope I've helped you in some humble way.
     
  15. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    hmm, so what does that make of those who came after them n put MORE WORDS of God into italics?

    thinkboutit! :D
     
  16. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop, I think I remember something about those books now. Just didn't know it was called the Acrophya (sp).

    If Henry the VIII authorized a version, then why did King James feel the need to make another one? Also, wasn't Henry the guy who killed his wives? (just curious) I don't think I would want a Bible authorized by him!

    Was the King James specifally written for the church of England? Do they believe like us?
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Hi Walls,

    I will answer from my perspective, it's "apocrypha" or the apocryphal books.

    They were included in the early English Bibles because the either the Church in England was Roman Catholic or the Anglo-Catholic Church which was theologically one micrometer away from Romanism.

    The CofE Articles of Faith seem to me to be a smoke screen because even today the "high" Church of England (aristocratic) is VERY Roman in practice, even seeking reconciliation with Rome.

    The "low" Church of England has always been evangelical to one degree or another and they resist ecumenism.

    The English kings and queens were driven by their strong religious beliefs and sincerely (or so it seems of many) wanted to be known by their zeal for the Word of God (for those who wern't popish) or allegiance to the Pope. Others persecuted, imprisoned and killed dissenters depending upon the religion of the reigning monarch. One year you would be favored the next you might be hung.

    It was a time of religious upheaval.

    In the 1611AV (if you have an original facsimile) you will see rules and guidelines for the English citizens concerning daily reading of Scripture, the celebration of saints days (very CATHOLIC) and other "churchy" regulations.

    Also there was (and is) the Book of Common Prayer which outlined religious practices, prayers, ritual, etc.

    Although the Church of England is known as "Protestant" a visit to a "high" Anglican Church service would leave the average person confused as to why they are not called "Catholic" and indeed many of the "high" Church want to be know as Anglo-Catholic.

    Perhaps some of the brethren from across the pond can help or correct anything I might have misunderstood about the Anglican Church.

    I am a former Roman Catholic and when I left the Church of Rome I investigated the Episcopal Church of America but found it too Catholic in doctrine and practice for me.

    HankD
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    HankD provided lots of useful info, but let me add s'more:

    The times had changed from Henry's time of authorizing a Bible(1537) and the the beginning of King James' reign(1603). During Henry's time, the British were involved in several wars with France, Spain, and, most importantly, Scotland. In Henry's day, Scotland was not a friend of England, and their king James IV, grandfather of James I of England, fought several times against England, as did his son James V, who died fighting the British in 1542. England underwent great turbulence, both religious and secular, during Henry's reign until well into James I's reign. The nation had transformed from an almost-totally Catholic nation during Henry's first years, to a heavily-Protestent one by James' time.

    James despised the Geneva Bible, which had become the standard of both England and Scotland, largely because of its numerous footnotes, some of which denied the "Divine Right of Kings". The officials of the Anglican Church had alreadt assembled a team to begin work on a new Bible version to replace the several versions then in use, as well as the Geneva. Since the Bishop's Bible of 1568 had been made by a committee of Anglican bishops, they wanted the new Bible to be basically a revision of the Bishop's Bible. King James, looking to replace the Geneva Bible, gave them the go-ahead in 1604.

    These translators operated under a set of rules drawn up by Archbishop Richard Bancroft, their "boss", who drew them up & obtained the king's approval for them. Bancroft, was, of course, an Anglican. Here's a URL to see his rules:

    http://www.kjvonly.org/other/kj_instructs.htm

    While we cannot say that the KJV is strictly an Anglican Bible, we know it was prepared mostly by Anglicans.

    I believe Hank is much better-qualified to provide you with more info on the Anglican Church than I am. Or, as he said, perhaps a friend across the pond may help.
     
  19. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very interesting.

    Would you say that they consertives of that time held to the Geneva the way we do the King James?

    If each Bible is changed to accomodate those in influence, which be the one most accurate out of the Texus Receptus?
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    That is very subjective. Probably all around, the nKJV. This is the most popular TR English Bible there are others not so well known.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...