The bible in English, why, where? (Page 2)

Zanjan
Zanjan: Last but not least, the Word of God is for smart people, not stupid people.

The other day, I was doing some advance planning on a pre-paid funeral for my 69 year old brother, who is developmentally delayed. He's a baptized Christian (later in life) so his input was important. I asked him what music he'd like played at his funeral. He said "Amazing Grace - that pretty much sums up my life in a nutshell".

My own brother can still surprise me - for him, the music wasn't important, it was the words.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Interesting point .God Word doesn't change ', It's message is for everyone .Amazing Grace is IMO God given or at lease inspired by God it's one of the best hymns ever written .Not only the Words n' Music but the history of Who wrote it .. John Newton wrote over 200 hymns

“I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”
― John Newton
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Something we need to remember in regards to the KJV is that it was written in the common vernacular of the day. Some people say that the English language "reached a state of perfection" by the 1600s, but with no evidence that this is true, and what evidence could be offered? Who decides what is perfect in languages? Why couldn't we say the Wycliffe Bible from the fourteenth century was done when the English language reached a state of perfection, and that should be the one we read? The language of the 1600s might seem "classical" to us now, but someone in four hundred years time might look back at today and think the same thing.

And, of course, we need to remember that the original Biblical scriptures were written in Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic, before the English language even existed. We could say that any English translation "dumbs down" the Bible, since it's pandering to us who don't want to learn those languages. Why is it alright to avoid learning Hebrew and Greek, but uneducated to not want to learn seventeenth century English?

I certainly agree that we can go too far with simplicity. I mentioned The Message before, a paraphrase which, from what I've read of it, I think is horrible in its simplistic style and what I also call a "smart alec" way of writing. But that still remains a personal view on my part. There are some people who love it.

Of course, it's also not just about style or ease of reading, but how accurate the translations are, which is another issue, and requires further study and thought.

I say again that the aim of any translation should be to provide an accurate as possible rendition of the original Biblical scriptures, in a style (in any language) that the reader can understand.
6 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: The problem with any translation of any texts', is whether the original tongues easily translate to the language of choice ". The original texts were mainly written in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew, sometimes called Classical Hebrew, is an archaic form of the Hebrew language. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek.Old Hebrew is no longer a spoken language ', therefore hard to translate too English . The Present day Hebrew is well known However : much of the text ',Scholar are sure there's enough knowledge and cross reference too be sure that the meaning is Clear .

The Bible is as accurate as we can hope for .
Proof of this would be much of Dead sea scrolls ',Translate almost word for word .with Present day Bibles .
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: This is very true. Translating anything from one language to another is a difficult task, since languages differ so much in words, sentence structures and suchlike. No two languages have exact equivalents on every word, so a certain degree of dynamic equivalence is inevitable.

I studied Basic Geek at BCQ, but not Hebrew. Even with the former, I don't know much (I got a Credit more by rote learning than anything particularly exceptional on my part), while with Hebrew I haven't much idea at all, but I do know it is a very hard language to learn, especially due to its antiquity.



6 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Actually; it's amazing any copies survived at all considering the amount of persecution the Jews and early Church suffered under of the last 40 centuries

We are more than fortunate too have over 50 ,000 copies of the NT alone
6 years ago Report
1
Cenababy
Cenababy: Yay yeah
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: It's certainly wonderful that we have as many copies that we do, but it's not quite 50 000, at least not in the original Greek.

We have roughly 5600 partial or complete copies of the New Testament in the original Greek language, dating back to the second century, and over 9000 early translations into such languages as Latin, Syriac and Arabic.

We also have, as a count I obtained a few years ago now, 38 289 NT quotations from early church writers, who wrote between second and fourth century AD.

Which remains way more attestation than any other book in antiquity. God has done a wonderful job in preserving His Word. :-)
6 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Sorry Doc: I forgot to mention they were not all complete ',Opps

"Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars. When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. This is less significant than may appear since it is a comparison across linguistic boundaries. More important estimates focus on comparing texts within languages. Those variations are considerably fewer. The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing, and textual criticism is the study of manuscripts in order to reconstruct a probable original text."
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
1
Cenababy
Cenababy: Ty doc, shoes 😁
6 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Doctor wrote: "We could say that any English translation "dumbs down" the Bible, since it's pandering to us who don't want to learn those languages. Why is it alright to avoid learning Hebrew and Greek, but uneducated to not want to learn seventeenth century English?"


You realize that the Hebrew spoken in the time of Christ was lost. It was only partially re-discovered. A version of Aramaic, which is a kind of Hebrew exists today but it's not the same as Jesus spoke or even in the same country. Ancient Greek is nothing like modern Greek. Nobody wants to learn a dead language.

Language is a reflection of the mindset, customs, physical environment and technology of the people - it has to evolve because people do; it has to expand as knowledge does.

The world of the ancients was very small, they were childish and so was their language. The language of the Bible was a literary marvel for a tribal people - it was never the conversational language of the day.

That's why the Apostles taught the people in their own, earthy language, describing the spiritual realities in a way that they were familiar with so they could better understand. Speaking in a 'tongue' wasn't intended to be incomprehensible to those spoken to; we should never pretend to know how it was spoken.

We record history *as it was* so we can see how far we've come. We don't aim to be like them because that would be a slide, not progress.

The difficulty with the Bible is it was never authenticated; the more one changes it, the worse it gets. That's why there is the curse on the final page - DON'T TOUCH.


(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zanjan

"they were childish and so was their language."

I don't agree', The ancients Knowledge is the foundation on which all we have today .
Other than Medical , Much of mechanics and tect we have today was known ,and Was developed in the past .
Morally the World today is no more or less pagan than the past'. In most cases I would say the world is less Moral today than in the Past '.

IMO
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Mmm... I'm afraid there's a lot wrong with what you've said, Zanjan.

To start with, many people do want to learn a "dead language". As an example, I refer to my time at Bible College of Queensland, which offered classes in Hebrew, which weren't compulsory. Some students did take the class, because they wanted to learn it. There are many theologians (and others) today who are very versed in the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament.

In regards to the New Testament, it was written in Koine Greek. That means Common Greek. It was indeed the conventional language of the day, which makes sense. Why would God want to communicate to people in a way that was hard to understand?

The books of the Bible are certainly literary marvels, but not because the languages that were used were anything extraordinary - it's because of how well the languages were used, and what they said.

And I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your last paragraph.

6 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Black: "The ancients Knowledge is the foundation on which all we have today ."

So are the weeping tiles and concrete footings under my basement. By no means, would that give anyone a picture of what real civilization looks like.

"Morally the World today is no more or less pagan than the past'."

There are fewer pagans and a lot more atheists today, even inside old monotheistic religions. They're all filled with worldly weeds. Apparently, it takes more then a Holy Book to instill spiritual knowledge. The world needs a wake-up call.
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Doctor: "I'm afraid there's a lot wrong with what you've said, Zanjan. "

Don't be afraid - that prevents you from blazing a trail. Most people don't want to go to Bible College, much less church.

The local Pastor shared with us his experiences at Bible College in our region - he said that many students had the wrong motivation when they attended - they had some very wild ideas and unacceptable behaviors, yet thought they could change the establishment. Well, few graduated and even fewer got a posting. Of those, only a couple remained ministers.

Ministers have a college certificate, not doctorates in theology - a university education is required for a degree. However, none of that was necessary for early Christians. There's a lot to be said for continuing self-education. Learning about other religions is indispensable to understanding your own properly.

Ancient Greek was the most *widespread* language, not the most common - that is, it was THE international language of the day, which was a great assistance to the trade industry. Says nothing of its quality. Christ, for sure, could speak Aramaic, traditional Hebrew and Egyptian but, spoke to the people in Aramaic, not Greek. You'd need to ask God why. From my own research, I understand that Aramaic was the most common language of Israel, a land which Jesus never left.

If English is your mother tongue, that doesn't guarnatee you'll know every word or speak it well - it certainly wont give you spiritual knowledge. Neither will any other language.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: RE: authentication - the Word of God, in the Bible, was never written down by the hand of Moses and Christ. There are no original documents of all the Books of the Bible. Initially, everything was passed on by word of mouth.......and you know how that goes, yet it was the only way they had. So, how advanced was THAT civilization??

Not everything in the Bible is the Word of God (pure Revelation from Moses and Christ alone). All else in the Bible is smooshed in with the accounts of men, ordinary men of no rank in their religion. The lesser Prophets of the House of Israel had strong spiritual virtues but they weren't Revelators, they were seers of the future and warners. That ended with Christianity - not the gift of prophecy, just the addition to scripture of what men born in the future say.

Revelations: CH 22:18- 19

18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

It's important to note that the Buddhist religion ( revealed 500 years before Christ) was passed on by word of mouth too, also with writings of men tossed in; these texts were tampered with so badly that even the word "God" was removed.

Do you think God didn't know that tampering would also happen to Christianity's scriptures? If there was no chance of that happening, a warning wouldn't have been necessary.

(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Certainly, people go to Bible College for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good, although it's certainly not just because they want to be pastors. During my three years of study, some dropped out, many more graduated.

I know I went mostly because I wanted to learn more about my faith, and I graduated with a Bachelor of Ministries, a degree that was enough for me to be a pastor, but that has never been something I've desired. Some others went because they wanted to go out on the mission field, something BCQ was very strong in.

It is true Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew (not sure about Egyptian), but the NT scriptures were written in Koine Greek because, by that time, it was becoming the dominant language, and was gradually becoming widespread. Indeed, the Septuagint was a translation of the Old Testament into Greek in the Third Century BC, so the language was obviously having some influence by then.

It is also true Christ never wrote any of the scriptures, but the general view is that Moses at least wrote some of the Pentateuch (Jesus makes references to his authorship), although how much can never be proven - he obviously wouldn't have written about his own death.

Can you show me where God warns against the tampering of the Biblical scriptures, and when it has happened?

6 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: My post must have jumped yours in que - see above.
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Early Christians didn't have the Books of the NT.....they had word of mouth, which was the teachings of Jesus. The Apostles recited the Words of Christ to the best of their memories but they, themselves, admitted they left out some things.

For several hundred years, many churches didn't have all of the letters of the Apostles, and there was huge space in time when even the churches didn't have a single Bible. What do you think happened?

Wild ideas had an opportunity to take hold like Velcro so, even when a Book finally arrived, it was pretty hard to root out the mis-perceptions that had already become erroneously entrenched.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zanjan

It's true we don't have any of the original autographs '.this by no means that the copies we have today were by word of mouth .That's a assumption . Much of the OT and NT states the authors of the books in the Bible '.





"RE: authentication - the Word of God, in the Bible, was never written down by the hand of Moses and Christ. There are no original documents of all the Books of the Bible. Initially, everything was passed on by word of mouth.......and you know how that goes, yet it was the only way they had. So, how advanced was THAT civilization??"

Alphabetical List of Old Testament Authors
• Amos: The book of Amos
• Daniel: The book of Daniel
• David: Psalms (Other authors wrote portions of Psalms as well)
• Ezekiel: The book of Ezekiel
• Ezra: The book of Ezra (Additionally Ezra is thought to have written 1st and 2nd Chronicles and possibly portions of Nehemiah)
• Habakkuk: The book of Habakkuk
• Haggai: The book of Haggai
• Hosea: The book of Hosea
• Isaiah: The book of Isaiah
• Jeremiah: 1st and 2nd Kings, Lamentations, the book of Jeremiah
• Joel: The book of Joel
• Jonah: The book of Jonah
• Joshua: The book of Joshua
• Malachi: The book of Malachi
• Micah: The book of Micah
• Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Moses possibly compiled/wrote the book of Job)
• Nahum: The book of Nahum
• Nehemiah: The book of Nehemiah
• Obadiah: The book of Obadiah
• Samuel: (Samuel is believed to have written 1st and 2nd Samuel, Ruth, and Judges)
• Solomon: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Solomon (also known as Song of Songs)
• Zechariah: The book of Zechariah
• Zephaniah: The book of Zephaniah

Alphabetical List of New Testament Authors
• James: The book of James
• John: Gospel of John, 1st John , 2nd John, 3rd John, Revelation
• Jude: Book of Jude
• Luke: Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles
• Mark: Gospel of Mark
• Matthew: Gospel of Matthew
• Paul: Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon (possibly the book of Hebrews)
• Peter: 1st and 2nd Peter



(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Old Testament authors - those are historical accounts of Jewish history by ordinary men, not the Word of God. They also contain prayers written by men, not revealed prayers. However, we consider them to be holy men so, what they wrote of their own generation could be relied upon. Thus, we can say the OT is a Holy Book by old world standards.

New Testament authors - same thing but they included some of the Word of God, recited from memory, including the world's first *revealed* prayer.

Paul, on the other hand, wasn't an Apostle (first hand witness). Whatever Paul said shouldn't have been included in scripture but it was, following an old tradition. You see, early Christians hadn't firmly separated from their Jewish roots yet; they considered Paul to be a holy man beloning to the same generation as Christ. He presented the Christian Faith as it was best known at the time.

The NT text ends when this generation dies. No more was to be added to it after that. You can see the progression of civilization here because almost 600 years later, the first fully authentic scripture was delivered, with NO writings of men included.

(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Zanjan, you say... For several hundred years, many churches didn't have all of the letters of the Apostles, and there was huge space in time when even the churches didn't have a single Bible. What do you think happened?

Could you show me evidence for that?

6 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: You should know this.........just look it up. The letters of the Apostles were collected from all different parts, only at the council of Nicaea. They did the first arrangements of the NT Books. The same order as we have today didn't appear until nearly 400 AD.

In 331, the Christian churches of Constantinople received 50 copies of the scriptures as a gift - they had nothing before that.

The king of England had to make a law, ruling that all churches should have a written Bible in them because, before that, they didn't.

These books were hand written by monks, using calligraphy and illumination - took an exceedingly long time to complete and were very expensive to purchase. Only the monasteries and aristocracies could afford to have them as most churches were too poor. I can't attest to the quality other than that but they were written in Latin.

Before the middle Ages, no universally sanctioned scriptures existed yet so all the different churches were using different texts and gospels. That's why the church discouraged members from reading text on their own.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” Wycliff was postumously condemned and his body dug up and burned. Tyndale was also burned at the stake for his translation. Nice people, eh?

That's the promise of the plagues. Europe was such a mess!

Basically, Christians didn't have the Bible until more recent times. History attests to the crazy path it took to the present. It's a miracle that any of Christ's Words came through that fire, but He promised they'd always last. He didn't promise anybody else's words would.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zanjan
I'm aware of all of that .It's very likely that most of the Churches had Gospels ,and OT books from Jesus Resurrection to 331 AD ", It's Also Likely ',They were All aware of a single Doctrine ,and most had some copies of the * Gospels and OT books .
This why were still finding copies to this day '.


* "The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine
(Edited by Blackshoes)
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Certainly I agree, the Bible didn't just suddenly appear in completion at 100 AD. It came together over time. But saying that "for several hundred years, many churches didn't have all of the letters of the Apostles, and there was huge space in time when even the churches didn't have a single Bible" is overstating things, I think.

Different parts of the New Testament, whether it be the gospels or the letters, were circulated widely throughout the early church as Christianity spread into the world. When that happened, copies were made. This meant they were spread all the more.

Eventually, the Bible as we now have it came together, but it was not the Council of Nicea which did it. This is a common misconception. At best, the Council might have confirmed what was already accepted by the churches, although some believe even that did not happen. There is no certain date as to when the Bible as we now have it was completed. There is never one recorded time when a person, or a group of people, sat down and said, "Alright, let's get all the available books together and decide which ones should be seen as officially inspired." It was a gradual process, through many years.

We are certainly much more blessed now with what is available than what Christians from centuries ago were, but to say that there was a huge space in time when the churches didn't have a single Bible is, I think, very much an exaggeration.



6 years ago Report
1