Why Was Bible Rewritten So Many Times?

[7sign301]

I understand it being translated into another language from greek and hebrew to English. To accommodate people speaking a different language. The English rewrote the bible 3 times under different rulers. King James being the last one. Just curious on why was that? Was anything left out during this or added? I think there is a newer version than king James out right now. Not sure. Can anyone help? Thanks God bless

 

[Hammster]

I understand it being translated into another language from greek and hebrew to English. To accommodate people speaking a different language. The English rewrote the bible 3 times under different rulers. King James being the last one. Just curious on why was that? Was anything left out during this or added? I think there is a newer version than king James out right now. Not sure. Can anyone help? Thanks God bless

Do you mean re-translated?

<*(((><

 

[7sign301]

Do you mean re-translated?

<*(((><

Yes. Just like a spanish song can be translated into english and vice versa

 

[Hammster]

Yes. Just like a spanish song can be translated into english and vice versa

Okay. That's different than being rewritten.

Most newer translations came about because of changes in the English language, and also due to the discovery of more ancient texts.

<*(((><

 

[a pilgrim]

The King James translation committee was brought together for a couple of different reasons. As far as the existing translations, there was a desire to clear up some word choices made in the Bishops Bible which it replaced. However, there was also the political advantages to be gained.

England was a divided nation. They were still in the process of purging the land of the influences of Rome and Catholicism. The two major players were the Church of England and the Covenanters, (staunch Calvinists of Scotland influenced by Geneva, thus the Geneva Version they used, which was good.)

They carefully and prayerfully worked together, comparing all the former translations and manuscripts that were available, and updated the scriptures, also making them available to the man behind the plow, thus fulfilling Tydales dying prayer.

Today, sorry to say, most translations are about copyrights and money. There is some good work out there, but most modern translation work is about the money.

 

[7sign301]

The King James translation committee was brought together for a couple of different reasons. As far as the existing translations, there was a desire to clear up some word choices made in the Bishops Bible which it replaced. However, there was also the political advantages to be gained.

England was a divided nation. They were still in the process of purging the land of the influences of Rome and Catholicism. The two major players were the Church of England and the Covenanters, (staunch Calvinists of Scotland influenced by Geneva, thus the Geneva Version they used, which was good.)

They carefully and prayerfully worked together, comparing all the former translations and manuscripts that were available, and updated the scriptures, also making them available to the man behind the plow, thus fulfilling Tydales dying prayer.

Today, sorry to say, most translations are about copyrights and money. There is some good work out there, but most modern translation work is about the money.

Yea. Thats makes sense. Back in those days Churches ran countries not gov't. Instead of bill of rights and constitution they had the sacred text to govern people from.

I figured in todays world it is all about money so no suprise that copyrights and money is the key to that. Im just curious on what was added and taking out when they put these different scripts into different versions. I dont like to feel like stuff have been left out or added all by a few people that was in charge of this back in those days.

 

[phoenixdem]

These links might help you. They talk about the many versions.

Why So Many Bible Translations?

http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=1720

 

[a pilgrim]

Yea. Thats makes sense. Back in those days Churches ran countries not gov't. Instead of bill of rights and constitution they had the sacred text to govern people from.

I figured in todays world it is all about money so no suprise that copyrights and money is the key to that. Im just curious on what was added and taking out when they put these different scripts into different versions. I dont like to feel like stuff have been left out or added all by a few people that was in charge of this back in those days.

You need to understand the issue of manuscript evidences. The KJV was based on superior manuscripts. There really wasn't an issue of omissions in it or the versions they were working off of, i.e., the Tyndale, the Geneva, the Luther, the Coverdale, and many others considered to based on the Textus Receptus (TR) by Erasmus.

The other family of manuscripts came from Rome, i.e., the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaticus, etc. These had glaring omissions and changes. Those two manuscripts alone differ over 3,000 times in the four Gospels alone, and yet, are what the "new" versions consider superior to the TR.

The KJV used a Hebrew based Old Testament called the Masoretic Text. The Jews guarded it jealously. The "new" versions, however, use the Biblia Hebracia Stuttgartensia based on the Codex Sinaticus, archeologist Tischendorf, found in a trash pile outside of a monastary on the Sinai peninsula.

Just remember, regardless to all of these different issues which many will argue, God left these promises:

God's word is pure, every word, and he will preserve it, without errors:

Psalm 12
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 119
[89] For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119
[140] Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
[6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 24
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Don't let anyone steal those promises from you.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I understand it being translated into another language from greek and hebrew to English. To accommodate people speaking a different language. The English rewrote the bible 3 times under different rulers. King James being the last one. Just curious on why was that? Was anything left out during this or added? I think there is a newer version than king James out right now. Not sure. Can anyone help? Thanks God bless

Not rewritten. Retranslated, and that is an ongoing process today. The modern translations (from 1901 forward) have the advantage of using over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, with a comparison error (that is, comparison of manuscripts of the same book) being less than 1%. Nothing has been left out. The Biblical canon has remained constant for almost 1700 years, 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Manuscripts from the 2nd century AD agree nearly 100% with manuscripts from the 10th century. The differences in translations come from decisions made by the translators. The KJV used only 400 manuscripts, known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" and still did an admirable job of accurately translating God's word, even though Erasmus, one of the chief translators, had no copy of The Revelation and had to translate the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and then retranslate it into English in order to arrive at what, for him, was a satisfactory rendering.

Rest assure, whether you using the KJV, the NASB, the ESV or even the NIV (a thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word translation) you're getting God's word.

 

[a pilgrim]

Not rewritten. Retranslated, and that is an ongoing process today. The modern translations (from 1901 forward) have the advantage of using over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, with a comparison error (that is, comparison of manuscripts of the same book) being less than 1%. Nothing has been left out. The Biblical canon has remained constant for almost 1700 years, 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Manuscripts from the 2nd century AD agree nearly 100% with manuscripts from the 10th century. The differences in translations come from decisions made by the translators. The KJV used only 400 manuscripts, known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" and still did an admirable job of accurately translating God's word, even though Erasmus, one of the chief translators, had no copy of The Revelation and had to translate the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and then retranslate it into English in order to arrive at what, for him, was a satisfactory rendering.

Rest assure, whether you using the KJV, the NASB, the ESV or even the NIV (a thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word translation) you're getting God's word.

Wasn't it through that same Latin Vulgate he based his decision to use the controversial Johanine Comma, 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the KJV?

The early church fathers quoted it in some of their writings.

1 John 5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Wasn't it through that same Latin Vulgate he based his decision to use the controversial Johanine Comma, 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the KJV?

The early church fathers quoted it in some of their writings.

1 John 5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I believe you're right, yes. In the Greek texts (except for the four that the KJV translators had in their possession) the seventh verse ends after "record" or "witness" as the NASB and ESV render it.

 

[OzSpen]

You need to understand the issue of manuscript evidences. The KJV was based on superior manuscripts. There really wasn't an issue of omissions in it or the versions they were working off of, i.e., the Tyndale, the Geneva, the Luther, the Coverdale, and many others considered to based on the Textus Receptus (TR) by Erasmus.

The other family of manuscripts came from Rome, i.e., the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaticus, etc. These had glaring omissions and changes. Those two manuscripts alone differ over 3,000 times in the four Gospels alone, and yet, are what the "new" versions consider superior to the TR.

The KJV used a Hebrew based Old Testament called the Masoretic Text. The Jews guarded it jealously. The "new" versions, however, use the Biblia Hebracia Stuttgartensia based on the Codex Sinaticus, archeologist Tischendorf, found in a trash pile outside of a monastary on the Sinai peninsula.

Just remember, regardless to all of these different issues which many will argue, God left these promises:

God's word is pure, every word, and he will preserve it, without errors:

Psalm 12
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 119
[89] For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119
[140] Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
[6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 24
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Don't let anyone steal those promises from you.

a pilgrim,

I do not know the scholars from whom you have obtained this information as it differs considerably from my research. What you state is not true, based on the information from my research, when you state:

The KJV was based on superior manuscripts.

Frankly, the KJV NT manuscript evidence as gathered by Erasmus and the Textus Receptus was minimal and not superior for these reasons:

1. The first Greek text to be published was that by Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (ca. AD 1469-1536) of Rotterdam, Holland. This was published in March 1516 and there were hundreds of printing errors in it. He published it as a diglot &#8211; in two languages, Greek and his own rather sophisticated Latin.

2. To prepare his Greek text, Erasmus used several Greek MSS but there was not one of them that incorporated the entire NT.

3. None of his MSS was earlier than the tenth century.

4. Erasmus consulted only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was lacking, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. So what did he do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. Therefore, in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS.

5. In other parts of the Greek NT, Erasmus introduced words he had translated from the Vulgate. Just as one example, in Acts 9:6 are the words from the KJV, &#8220;And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?&#8221; These words have been found in no other Greek MSS. It is possible that Erasmus assimilated something that paralleled Acts 22:10.

6. Erasmus&#8217;s Greek NT testament is behind the King James Version NT. Yet it is based on only half a dozen minuscule MSS and not one of them is earlier than the tenth century. Erasmus&#8217;s text was printed by a number of publishers, the most important being Robert Estienne whose surname has been Latinised as Stephanus. He issued 4 editions and the third edition of 1550 is the first critical edition of the Greek text. It was Stephanus who introduced verse numbering into the text. The second edition was the one that was used by Luther for his German Bible (Carson 1979:34).

7. Theodore Beza, the successor to John Calvin, published a Greek text in 9 editions that varied very little from that of Stephanus.

8. The KJV translators relied on Beza&#8217;s editions of 1588-1589 and 1598. (The above information has been gleaned from Carson 1979:34-37). Carson explains:

&#8220;In 1624, thirteen years after the publication of the KJV, the Elzevir brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham, published a compact Greek New Testament, the text of which was largely that of Beza. In the second edition, published in 1633, there is an advertising blurb (Metzger&#8217;s term) that says, in Latin &#8230; (&#8220;The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted&#8221. This is the origin of the term Textus Receptus (or TR, as it is often referred to): the Latin words &#8220;textum &#8230; receptum&#8220; have simply been put into the nominative. The TR is not the &#8220;received text&#8221; in the sense that it has been received from God as over against other Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is the &#8220;received text&#8221; in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs. Nevertheless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness&#8221; (1979:36).

9. Up until 1881, the TR, only with a few modifications, was the basis of all European translations. The most prominent MSS of the TR were from the Byzantine family and these were the dominant MSS for 2 centuries. It is true that Beza had access to codex Bezae, which is a Western text-type, but it had such significant differences when compared with the others, that it was not used with any significance by Beza.

10. The TR is not in total agreement with the Byzantine family of texts as the Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR only refers to about one-hundredth of that evidence.

11. It is common for defenders of the TR and the KJV, to speak against the textual critical theories of B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort. This has been happening for about a century. Westcott & Hort had available to them the newly discovered codex Sinaiticus and by 1889-1890, codex Vaticanus, along with other MSS. Westcott, Hort & Bengel presented a case for following text-types and they found that the Byzantine tradition did not go any further back than the fourth century and that it was &#8220;a conflation of earlier texts&#8221; (Carson 1970:40). Westcott & Hort considered that the Alexandrian tradition (e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) was earlier than the Byzantine text-type, which only went back to about the middle of the fourth century.

12. On this basis, the earliest text-type is not that of the Byzantine TR behind the KJV, but the Alexandrian tradition which is generally accepted today as being closer to the original manuscripts. Hence the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT and other translations since 1881 (except the NKJV) are based on the Alexandrian text-type. Carson (1979:52) is convinced from the evidence that &#8220;the Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available&#8221;. Part of his assessment is:

&#8220;Not only is the Alexandrian text-type found in some biblical quotations by ante-Nicene fathers, but the text-type is also attested by some of the early version witnesses. More convincing yet, Greek papyri from the second and third centuries have shown up, none of which reflects a Byzantine text and most of which have a mixed Alexandrian / Western text. The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type (Carson 1979:53).

13. There have been various KJV editions. The 1631 edition omitted the word &#8220;not&#8221; from the seventh of the Ten Commandments and so obtained the reputation of being called &#8220;Wicked Bible&#8221;. There was a 1717 edition printed at Oxford that has the reputation of being called the &#8220;Vinegar Bible&#8221; because the chapter heading of Luke 20 read &#8220;vinegar&#8221; instead of &#8220;vineyard&#8221; (Geisler & Nix 1986:567-568).

The 1769 revision of the KJV, which we use today, differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 details (Goodspeed in Geisler & Nix 1986:568). On YouTube there is a side by side comparison of the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV. A copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV is currently available for sale as The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha (Oxford World&#8217;s Classics).

Therefore, some of your assumptions about the superior of the KJV MSS cannot be supported by the evidence.

For further details, see my article, 'The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?'

Sincerely, Oz

 

[VCViking]

Oz, thank you for your post. This is something I have been researching myself on and off for the last year or so. For me so far, I tend to agree with a pilgrim, however, I am in no position to really debate this because I am still researching it. So far, the evidence for me has pointed to the underlining manuscripts of the KJV. But my research is still continuing and I am always searching for new info from either side. I see the references and the endnotes in your article and will look into them. Anything else you could recommend would be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, thank you for your post. This is something I have been researching myself on and off for the last year or so. For me so far, I tend to agree with a pilgrim, however, I am in no position to really debate this because I am still researching it. So far, the evidence for me has pointed to the underlining manuscripts of the KJV. But my research is still continuing and I am always searching for new info from either side. I see the references and the endnotes in your article and will look into them. Anything else you could recommend would be much appreciated. Thank you.

The most recent book that I have in my library addressing this debate is: James R. White 2009. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House.

It consists of 350 pp in a well-rounded discussion (one chapter being Q&A) by a seasoned Christian mind.

Let's see if I can find Google giving a sample of the book for you to get a taste for what is in the book. Here goes:

Here is a Google Books copy with some pages missng of The King James Only Controversy.

Here are some response by James White on his ministry's website to, 'The King James Only Movement'.

These are reviews of White's book:
Review #1
Review #2
A brief overview, chapter by chapter
To show the fallacies of James White's book

In Christ, Oz

 

[VCViking]

Thanks Oz. I have that book. It didn't influence me and I was a little dissapointed because I like White. But there was a few things in there that raised some questions about the KJV and I haven't seen it addressed yet by the KJV-Only camp. David Cloud put out a rebuttal book to White's but he did not address the issue White brought up, oddly enough. I'll check out those links about White. Thanks.

I also have two books by Rick Norris that I am going through (slowly). He used to post here actually, and a booklet by John Ankerberg but that booklet is very dissapointing also.

Thanks again.

 

[Skala]

http://visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nt_reliability1.jpg

See this chart for questions about the NT's reliability.

 

[OzSpen]

http://visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nt_reliability1.jpg

See this chart for questions about the NT's reliability.

Skala,

That's a excellent graphical summary. The problem with it is that it lacks verification by bibliographical references. If a person asked me, 'From where did you gain that information?' I would not have a clue as the details are not given.

When I studied under apologist & theologian John W. Montgomery, he gave similar material, but bibliographical material was not there either. This is how Montgomery attempts to validate the NT Christian revelation claim - inductively:

1. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents -- primary source evidence for the life of Christ,
​

2. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. In all four Gospels, Christ's bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ's resurrection evidences His deity.

4. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them -- but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

5. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament. [John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.]​

In Christ, Oz

 

[a pilgrim]

Of course we will all side with the misc. evidences we like best. In light of your information about Erasamus and his text, I found this comment:

Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century.24 His successor in this work, Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus), ultimately had access to 19 Greek manuscripts with which to edit his volumes, and the edition of 1550 became the major source of the King James New Testament translation. Theodore Beza added yet more ancient manuscripts to those used by Stephens, and prepared five editions based upon these added collations. Finally, the Elzevirs in 1624 produced a Greek codex which they called the Textus Receptus and which, despite its more extensive editing and use of more ancient manuscripts than Stephens had access to, was almost completely the same as the text of Stephens, differing only in a few spellings, word order, accent marks, and other minor changes.

Antiquity or abundance of "Greek" origin manuscripts do not make the KJV superior, it is the fact that they were not tampered with to the extent the RCC and Alexandrian texts. If the Lord wanted to preserve "clean" text through a variety of manuscripts that would be no marvel.

I still believe the TR to be superior to the "critical texts." Here is a very good article about the Textus Receptus.

Ultimately one is either going to put greater trust in scholarship or the Lord's promise that his word is pure and will be preserved.

Psalm 12
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[OzSpen]

Of course we will all side with the misc. evidences we like best.

That might be how you assess the evidence. As a NT student, that is not my approach.

Don (D A) Carson's assessment is:

"In 1624, thirteen years after the publication of the KJV, the Elzevir brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham, published a compact Greek New Testament, the text of which was largely that of Beza. In the second edition, published in 1633, there is an advertising blurb (Metzger's term) that says, in Latin ... ("The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted"). This is the origin of the term Textus Receptus (or TR, as it is often referred to): the Latin words "textum ... receptum" have simply been put into the nominative. The TR is not the "received text" in the sense that it has been received from God as over against other Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is the "received text" in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs. Nevertheless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness" (1979:36).

Bibliography

D. A. Carson 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. GrandRapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[7sign301]

When it comes to the bible it can be confusing. Its a lot of words and stories in there. No matter if it was retranslated 100x or have stuff added or taken out. My thing is i have to look at the moral of the stories in the bible and refer it to what and who God really is. That is of truth and love. A positive outcome. Man throught out history used the bible to do good and bad. Thats no suprise because the devil twisted God's truth to make it favor himself.

Slavery in america lasted for 200 years. The slave masters and their families was from English decent. they had the king James version bible. How else in the bible would they justify having slaves? and torturing them and killing them? Killing babies, raping woman. Some slave owners like thomas jefferson had babies with these slaves. This is how the house negro got invented. From slave owners having babies with the black females slaves. Slave owners were married with families living on land. So this means that they were committing adultery by having relations with slaves. Too long people have been trying to use God's word to favor their lifestyle instead of living righteously.