The Bible

[sonofeugene]

ok, i don't get it. the way you say it, Christianity sounds like a thinly veiled threat. bow down or you go straight to hell. so if one is only bowing down to avoid hell then he is not freely making the decision to be a christian instead its more like he is being forced so can he be a true christian? its like a guy saying get in my car and lets go for a ride, the people he asks might say no, but if he ask them to get in the car while he is holding a gun they will most likely get in the car. can you be considered a christian if the only reason you started calling yourself a christian is to avoid hell?

Agree. Religions are generally based on fear. Fear of something bad happening to you or fear of missing out on something good. A decent deity wouldn't do that which in my view is more evidence that religions and their beliefs are the sole fabrications of man.

[Lineman101]

A decent diety would not be decent if He allows injustice, murder, rape, theft, so on, to go unpunished. All have been given the opportunity to escape the burning building, if you will. The question is: will you use the way provided to escape?

Religion has been said to be man reaching to god. Christianity is God reaching to man. God will right all the injustice ever committed in this time. God's creation, God's rules. You are free to choose, you are not free to choose the consequences of your actions. Either in this life or in Eternity.

[buckshot0351]

And this wasr10, is why I like reading what you have to write!

How does one come to know God? Is it a feeling? I don't trust my feelings because they change too often. Is it opinion? I don't trust my opinions because they are driven by my feelings. Is it from other men? I don't trust man's opinion because we are all flawed. If one is to know God one must have a solid, unchanging source. People believe they find that source in many different forms. I have found the Bible. It is solid and unchanging. Quoting the Bible to present one's stance on Christianity is the only reliable and verifiable means to present any argument from a Christian position.

Yes, changes had been made from the Greek and Hebrew when it was translated to Latin, and again when the Latin was translated in to modern languages such as English. However, thanks to sciences such as archaeology, we have been able to piece together a rendition of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts to an almost 99% accuracy. And the problems of at 1% usually deal with forms of 'is' and 'to' and so on. If a person truly wishes to know the words written by the Scriptural authors, they can. Incidentally, I have found the New American Standard and the New King James to be the most accurate English representations.

So translation and change is not an issue. Also, you don't have to believe blindly to what a church or a teacher tells you. You can read the message for yourself. And to get to the point of the OP, the Bible does indeed include a choice; obedience or disobedience, and with each a consequence. It is up to us whether we shall believe.

[WASR10]

And this wasr10, is why I like reading what you have to write!

Thanks, man! That means a lot to me

[RAMCLAP]

It wasn't translated from Greek to Latin to English. It was translated from the Original Greek to English.

[WASR10]

It wasn't translated from Greek to Latin to English. It was translated from the Original Greek to English.

Before English Bibles were prevalent, most Bibles were in Latin. The "church authorized" version was the Latin Vulgate. Many English Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, including the most popular, the Wycliffe Bible. The first popular English Bible that claimed to be translated from Greek, was the Tyndale Bible. But the Tyndale was translated from a Bible that was translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. These two Bibles were the basis for the 1611 King James version.

Several Bibles available in English today are indeed translated from the best ancient Greek transcripts available, resulting in an extremely accurate English version of the Greek (and Hebrew).

[Not a Cook]

Before English Bibles were prevalent, most Bibles were in Latin. The "church authorized" version was the Latin Vulgate. Many English Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, including the most popular, the Wycliffe Bible. The first popular English Bible that claimed to be translated from Greek, was the Tyndale Bible. But the Tyndale was translated from a Bible that was translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. These two Bibles were the basis for the 1611 King James version.

Several Bibles available in English today are indeed translated from the best ancient Greek transcripts available, resulting in an extremely accurate English version of the Greek (and Hebrew).

WASR10 - Respectfully, your summary statement isn't entirely accurate and may give some folks the wrong idea, so I'd like to point a few things out.

First, the Bible is the most often-translated book in the history of the world. Not only has it been translated into more languages than any other book, but it has also been translated more times (multiple times into most languages). It has been translated into what the KJV translators referred to as the "vulgar languages" (and which we'd call the common languages of the people) virtually since the times that each of its constituent books was first written. Although Latin was ONE of these languages, it was not the first such translation nor the last. Much of the history of the church takes place in places where Latin was and is a foreign tongue, and as such the Bible used in those places has never been in Latin (ex. the Syriac Pe****ta). The Latin Vulgate has never been the official "church authorized" translation, unless you're specifically referring to the Roman Catholic Church and ignoring all other branches and denominations of Christ's followers. The Bible has been translated into literally hundreds of languages from very ancient times.

Second, the 1611 King James Bible wasn't translated as you described above. As the inscription in every KJV Bible I've ever encountered reads, "TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED". The Old Testament books were translated from what we refer to as the Masoretic text in Hebrew. The New Testament books were likewise translated from what we refer to as the Textus Receptus (from the Majority Text) manuscripts written in Greek. It is accurate to say, as the original translators claimed, that the KJV was "diligently compared" with the "former translations" for then-familiar sentence and syntax structure and word choice, but it is a true translation from the original languages nonetheless. It is also worth noting that the "former translation" with which it was most "diligently compared" was the then-most-popular-English-translation, the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the first (as far as I'm aware) English translation of the Bible where the Old Testament books were entirely translated from Hebrew rather than from an intermediate translation. The Geneva Bible's New Testament was largely based on a revision of Tyndale's 1534 version which was re-worked by Whittingham, Calvin's brother-in-law. Tyndale's 1534 version was a translation from Erasmus' Greek, but was compared by Tyndale against Erasmus' Latin translation, Luther's German translation, and the Latin Vulgate. Although Erasmus "edited" certain Greek passages based upon his Latin translation, it was not a Greek translation from Latin, but rather was based upon ancient Greek manuscripts that Erasmus selectively edited to "harmonize" with the Latin. The New Testament books from Tyndale's/Whittingham's translation and the Geneva Bible translation and the 1611 KJV translation were all from Greek, not Latin.

Regarding post-KJV English translations: the majority of these "modern translations" are translated from the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, not intermediate translations such as the Latin Vulgate. Which ones of these "modern translations" are best, and how they compare with the 1611 King James Version, is a whole 'nother topic.

[WASR10]

WASR10 - Respectfully, your summary statement isn't entirely accurate and may give some folks the wrong idea, so I'd like to point a few things out.

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that. Some of the things you point are out are exactly what I assert, some things are irrelevant or rather out of the scope of my post, and then some things are incorrect.

Instead of posting a long, multiquote rebuttal that won't be read, I will address only a few points that I find incorrect.

No where did I say the Latin translations were the first or the last. Not sure why you assert I hold that position. But Latin was indeed the most utilized and distributed language for Bibles until the English versions became widely available. Latin was the language of the scholars, even in places where the populace did not speak it. The Latin Vulgate was indeed considered the authorized version by, (as you well know from my post I intended) the RCC. It was the RCC, whether in association with or in defiance of, that drove translations in the common languages (think Geneva translation).

The KJV OT was not translated directly from a sole Hebrew text. The NT was not translated directly from a Greek text. Many previous translations were considered. Most overwhelmingly, these were derived from Latin translations. The largest contributor of these translations, the Latin Vulgate. The KJV NT was partially influenced by the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was the Elzevir version of the Beza rework of the Eisienne Greek translation, which was in of itself a built up version of Erasmus. And I'm sorry, but Erasmus' Greek version was indeed translated from the Latin Vulgate. It corrected some of the errors that the Wycliffe (also translated from the Vulgate) had by use of no more than 6 Greek manuscripts. Greek manuscripts were in very short supply until the 19th and 20th centuries. The Tyndale (1526, by the way) has its roots in Latin translation. The Wycliffe, the Tyndale, and the culminated works derived from such versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate itself, were all considered material used in translating the KJV. The political and theological climate of the day was strong motivation for the authors to claim its superiority.

The KJV is in no way a true translation of the ancient Greek and Hebrew sources. Notice I say ancient and not original, sources and not languages. You are correct though, the most accurate English translation we have available today is a different topic.

Thanks for your time.

[Not a Cook]

Thanks for taking the time to write all of that. Some of the things you point are out are exactly what I assert, some things are irrelevant or rather out of the scope of my post, and then some things are incorrect.

Instead of posting a long, multiquote rebuttal that won't be read, I will address only a few points that I find incorrect.

No where did I say the Latin translations were the first or the last. Not sure why you assert I hold that position. But Latin was indeed the most utilized and distributed language for Bibles until the English versions became widely available. Latin was the language of the scholars, even in places where the populace did not speak it. The Latin Vulgate was indeed considered the authorized version by, (as you well know from my post I intended) the RCC. It was the RCC, whether in association with or in defiance of, that drove translations in the common languages (think Geneva translation).

The KJV OT was not translated directly from a sole Hebrew text. The NT was not translated directly from a Greek text. Many previous translations were considered. Most overwhelmingly, these were derived from Latin translations. The largest contributor of these translations, the Latin Vulgate. The KJV NT was partially influenced by the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was the Elzevir version of the Beza rework of the Eisienne Greek translation, which was in of itself a built up version of Erasmus. And I'm sorry, but Erasmus' Greek version was indeed translated from the Latin Vulgate. It corrected some of the errors that the Wycliffe (also translated from the Vulgate) had by use of no more than 6 Greek manuscripts. Greek manuscripts were in very short supply until the 19th and 20th centuries. The Tyndale (1526, by the way) has its roots in Latin translation. The Wycliffe, the Tyndale, and the culminated works derived from such versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate itself, were all considered material used in translating the KJV. The political and theological climate of the day was strong motivation for the authors to claim its superiority.

The KJV is in no way a true translation of the ancient Greek and Hebrew sources. Notice I say ancient and not original, sources and not languages. You are correct though, the most accurate English translation we have available today is a different topic.

Thanks for your time.

WASR10 - We're generally in agreement in most of our posts on this board, so I don't want to bug you unnecessarily with this topic, but I'm sincerely hoping you can help me to correct my understanding of this topic. Please be patient with me and forgive me for belaboring this topic; I honestly want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting it (since it comes up here quite often in other threads and in discussions with "KJV only-ers"). I should probably preface this by stating I'm not a member of the "KJV only club" and most of what I'd written previously was from memory, and after checking I now know that I was wrong about at least one point (I'll note below that I was wrong about what I wrote about Erasmus' translation being the main basis for the KJV NT).

That said, since I first read what you wrote above, I've been checking various references that I have available, and I keep coming back to these several points I'll list below:
1 - the 1611 KJV OT was translated to English from multiple Masoretic texts' Hebrew (ref.http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_hebrew_text.htm - BTW, please don't let the domain name throw you - it's a site by a gentleman who is NOT KJV only);
2 - the 1611 KJV NT was translated to English from (as you noted above) several Greek sources for the NT. However, I keep reading that, for the most part, these Greek sources were not translated from an intermediate translation such as the Vulgate. (When I originally wrote my post above, I was incorrectly remembering that Erasmus' Greek text was the main basis for the KJV NT, and after reading your post and checking a number of references, I found I was wrong and that Erasmus' Greek text was only one of the Greek texts.) Can you point me toward research that will show these Greek sources the KJV translators used were translated from Latin (with the exception of Erasmus' "missing sections", as I'll note below)? I just can't find it, but I keep reading research that shows they were from Greek sources independent of the Latin. Any such research would be helpful for me to have when I run across "KJV only-ers".
3 - The Greek texts behind the 1611 KJV NT translation were Stephanus' Third Edition, Erasmus' editions, Beza, and the Complutensian Polyglott (http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Greek_Text_of_AV.pdf), correct?
4 - Erasmus' Greek text was generally not based upon the Latin Vulgate (although Erasumus LOVED the Vulgate and prepared his own Latin translation as well), BUT Erasmus DID wholesale back-translate from Vulgate to the Greek specific sections which occurred in the Latin Vulgate but were "missing" in the Greek texts he had available. At least one of these (the "Comma Johanneum") was included by him in a latter edition against his better judgment because he felt he had to "pay up" and include it after making a hasty promise. These are the only places that I can find where the Greek text underlying the 1611 KJV was a translation through an intermediary translation. Are there others?

Can you please let me know which (and what part) of each of the points is incorrect? I'd love any online resources you could point me toward.

Thanks in advance for your help!

P.S. Some of what I'd written in my previous post above was not intended as a reply to you, but rather was written to attempt to "head off at the pass" some other things that some other members of the board have incorrectly claimed repeatedly. I in no way meant to suggest that you held that Latin was either the first or the last translation. Similarly, I noted that the Vulgate wasn't the authorized version of the Church because many other folks on this board repeatedly ignore or are simply not aware that the extent and history of the Church extends far beyond the RCC at any point in time. From what many here have written, they seem not aware of the history of the "Church of the East" at all, where Latin or the RCC were never even a factor.

[RAMCLAP]

Latin was only used in the western part of the empire. Every part of the empire that had been Alexander's spoke a common Greek. When Constantine moved the capitol to what is now Turkey they spoke Greek there. So there were more original manuscripts in Greek than there were Latin. This is also true for the OT with the Septuagint. So, there would never be any need to translate from Greek to Latin to English.

[WASR10]

RAMCLAP, when the known world was using the Latin translation of the Bible, even as the Catholic and Greek Orthodox were splitting from the singular apostate church, no part of the world was using another version (save a rudimentary Germanic language spoken by a very few). At the time, there was no complete Greek translation, apart from the Latin derivative, until well after English versions were common.


Not A Cook, I sure appreciate your response. I wish so many others were as gentlemanly and courteous as this. I am inspired by the very demeanor of your post. I very much want to give you a comprehensive response. Now, I've stated the facts as I know them. This comes from graduate school some eleven years previous, so it will take time for me to consider your arguments and respond with confidence. However, I do stand by my posts, and believe what I have stated to be true and correct. If and when I can, I will shed more light to my position. Thanks again.