Why are there so many?

[weaponoffreedom]

Why are there so many bibles? And why are the words, articles of words different from bible to bible? Such as KJV, NKJV, LVB, etc?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Why are there so many bibles? And why are the words, articles of words different from bible to bible? Such as KJV, NKJV, LVB, etc?

The Bible was originally written in Greek, and we can go back to that to find the original meaning. People through the ages have attempted to correctly translate it into English. Others, like the Message Bible, have attempted to translate it into modern language. This is the main reason for new translations, is "language change", if you read the KJV the English is very out of date, it is not written in the English of the day. Newer versions have attempted to make it more readable. There is still a lot of scholarly attention that goes into translations. Most Bibles are very close to the original text.

 

[Tolworth John]

Why are there so many bibles? And why are the words, articles of words different from bible to bible? Such as KJV, NKJV, LVB, etc?

You can learn for your self how language changes by looking uo Chaucer, or John Milton or Jonathan Edwards and reading some of what they wrote.
Try reading the preface to any version of a bible and you'll get the reason why they did this translation.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Understood about translation from original. My question is deeper than that. There are dozens of different bibles that are in english. The King James Version, for example is in english. So specifically to the english language, why are they different? Say different things, and are presented in a different way?

Here is an example:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: antichrist

in contrast to:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: antichrist

Understand, this question is having to do with the differences in what is being said, not the verses themselves.

 

[Samsun]

Every human being past, present, and future has a personal way of seeing everything, including what's in the Bible. And it isn't necessary bad -- just past of our human nature (we aren't God, in other words).

The Bible shows us this, as well. For example:

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And [Jesus] said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” (Luke 10:25-26)

Every translation is made by humans who should more accurately be called "interpreters", and not translators. This is true even for modern translators who are expert in the ancient languages because they did not live 2,000+ years ago, in the ancient cultures, places, day-to-day lives, etc., of the original authors and readers. So they will never fully understand what was understood by those original authors and readers.

That's part of our faith -- not that we can know truth because we have the correct interpretation (though of course we want the closest one we can get), but because God saves us despite our humanness with all its brokenness, lack of understanding, biases, etc.,

Because of all this, for myself I look for the patterns in Scripture that suggest the stronger understandings of truth, rather than trying to cling to specific details or words. For example, the basics of what's needed to be saved is a very strong pattern that can be found even by those who can't read at all. So I rely on that. Another strong pattern is that Christ was sufficient for our salvation, and we don't need other human beings ("priests", etc) to mediate for us. So I cling to that pattern. And so on.

We too often plant flags and wage war on each other based on things that do not have those strong patterns (we too often make those bigger parts of our faith, it seems, than the truly strong patterns). There may be truths found in those, as well, but judging and condemning and avoiding each other based on them creates those false "denominations", "creeds", and so on that have created the divided "church".

 

[John Owen]

Understood about translation from original. My question is deeper than that. There are dozens of different bibles that are in english. The King James Version, for example is in english. So specifically to the english language, why are they different? Say different things, and are presented in a different way?

Here is an example:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: antichrist

in contrast to:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: antichrist

Understand, this question is having to do with the differences in what is being said, not the verses themselves.

Because different groups who do translation have different theories.

For example there is word for word. In English, we say "I have a frog in my throat." We know what that means. If you translate it word for word into French, they do not understand. But if you tannslate it as a phrase, You'd say something like, "My throat is sore."

 

[RileyG]

It's different translations. Some of the Hebrew Canon (Protestants), and some of the Septuagint (Catholic & Orthodox).

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Because different groups who do translation have different theories.

For example there is word for word. In English, we say "I have a frog in my throat." We know what that means. If you translate it word for word into French, they do not understand. But if you tannslate it as a phrase, You'd say something like, "My throat is sore."

right, so in the english language, there should be only one? But there are dozens it seems

 

[Miles]

right, so in the english language, there should be only one? But there are dozens it seems

Grammar and sentence structure differ between Greek and English. Also, some languages don't even contain words for concepts commonly expressed with one word in other languages. These are sometimes referred to as "untranslatable". Even English dictionaries aren't 1:1 copies of each other. The same meanings can be conveyed multiple ways.

 

[Chaleb]

Why are there so many bibles? And why are the words, articles of words different from bible to bible? Such as KJV, NKJV, LVB, etc?

The Devil is the author of Confusion.
So, 400 "New" bibles is confusing.

Let me show you how.

I can be be preaching and use a verse that isn't in the bible you are using, because it was taken out by the Translation cultist who created that "new" bible.

See that?

That is "confusion".

= Welcome to the Devil.
He has a lot of that going on.... so that ""strife and every evil work"" = keeps building new theology, now "forums"... and new denominations and "new" bibles.

 

[Twin_niwT]

I've seen interpretations that completely change the meaning of the verse, or water it down, that's why I stick to King James Version only. If I had to take a guess about motives, I'd say it's to intentionally deceive. There are certain truths that they want hidden from the general public because they are a hinderance to Satan's agenda for the world.

 

[SuperCow]

I've seen interpretations that completely change the meaning of the verse, or water it down, that's why I stick to King James Version only. If I had to take a guess about motives, I'd say it's to intentionally deceive. There are certain truths that they want hidden from the general public because they are a hinderance to Satan's agenda for the world.

I don't think that most groups that want to publish a new Bible translation are doing it to "intentionally" deceive. Divisions in the church that originated almost 2000 years ago and divided into something like 1500 sects is what set this in motion. (Actually Jewish sects diverged even before Christ) Much of the Bible is prophetic or metaphoric and much of the language does not directly translate. Greek has four words for love, for instance. A simple preposition can change the meaning entirely in English, and in many languages prepositions don't even exist.

Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox churches don't even have the same canon. Most protestant branches have 66 books and others can have up to 82. (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church)

So there's going to be some committee to discuss confusing or controversial verses, and the ideologies of the committee members is going to determine which way a verse should be translated. And in the few cases in the past where someone spent years translating it alone, their own ideologies will trickle into the translation. KJV is not immune to this. It just seems like it is, because it's "bias" (for lack of a better term) is more attuned to peoples theological expectations.

That being said, most translation differences do not affect the meaning. (That includes the example above from BibleGateway) The differences we are talking about are an extremely small proportion of the Bible and in reality do not change the reality of how a Christian should live his life.

 

[Twin_niwT]

I don't think that most groups that want to publish a new Bible translation are doing it to "intentionally" deceive. Divisions in the church that originated almost 2000 years ago and divided into something like 1500 sects is what set this in motion. (Actually Jewish sects diverged even before Christ) Much of the Bible is prophetic or metaphoric and much of the language does not directly translate. Greek has four words for love, for instance. A simple preposition can change the meaning entirely in English, and in many languages prepositions don't even exist.

Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox churches don't even have the same canon. Most protestant branches have 66 books and others can have up to 82. (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church)

So there's going to be some committee to discuss confusing or controversial verses, and the ideologies of the committee members is going to determine which way a verse should be translated. And in the few cases in the past where someone spent years translating it alone, their own ideologies will trickle into the translation. KJV is not immune to this. It just seems like it is, because it's "bias" (for lack of a better term) is more attuned to peoples theological expectations.

That being said, most translation differences do not affect the meaning. (That includes the example above from BibleGateway) The differences we are talking about are an extremely small proportion of the Bible and in reality do not change the reality of how a Christian should live his life.

 

[Twin_niwT]

Oh yes they do!! but you're too blind to 'see' it because you're too "friendly" with the world(Satan). God doesn't open the eyes of the unfaithful, He allows them to wallow in the mire -blind, dumb and naive for life. Repent of your love affair with Satan before you claim to be of my God, sinner.

 

[SuperCow]

Oh yes they do!! but you're too blind to 'see' it because you're too "friendly" with the world(Satan). God doesn't open the eyes of the unfaithful, He allows them to wallow in the mire -blind, dumb and naive for life. Repent of your love affair with Satan before you claim to be of my God, sinner.

Forgive me if I'm mistaking your intent here, but it appears that you just inferred that I am blind, dumb and naive. Furthermore, you imply I worship Satan without cause, which I think is a deep insult for most readers of this web site. Therefore, the only relevant part of your post that remains is "Oh yes they do!!", which you say without providing any new information that might be helpful if we are to understand your point of view so that anyone could follow it. So let me clarify some of my post to help you understand where I am coming from.

First of all, an unwitting pawn in someone else's master plan to do evil, does not necessarily intend to do evil themselves, whether that unwitting pawn is an individual, committee or company. I don't believe that the translators of Bible XYZ create their Bible with an intent to stumble, or confuse Christians into worshipping Satan or prevent a new convert from approaching Jesus properly.

What they do is translate non-controversial passages happily the way everyone expects (with normal grammatical variations that don't change the meaning). When they come to a controversial passage, the thought process goes something like:

a.) This passage could be translated a few different ways.
b.) We believe in a theological concept A.
c.) If we translate this passage one way, it will look like we are supporting concept B.
d.) We had better not confuse the reader, so it's best to phrase it this way to ensure the reader understands it as A and not B.
e.) In the worst case scenario, they have to research ways to twist the old or the new language from the B meaning to the A meaning even if logic dictates the opposite.

In the end, whether the translation is eventually judged as a good or bad translation is irrelevant, because the writers believed in their mind that they were doing the right thing. This is not intentional deception (in most cases). It is very much just a difference of opinion which can never go away as long as the original scrolls no longer exist, and the most ancient records we do have exhibit the same issues.

I can have just as much justification to believe it is you whose eyes are not opened, as you have justification to believe it is me. But that is a shame, because at this point we have no idea whether we agree or disagree on any theological issue (beyond whether which one of us is saved or doomed), though I am sure that overall we have both points of agreement and disagreement in whatever our beliefs are.

So, for one last question. You say you are KJV only. Does that mean the printings of the KJV Bible since 1885, or the original KJV in 1611 which included a dozen more apocryphal books? And what justification do you use to include or exclude those books, other than you agree with the Catholic view or the Protestant view?