Why the bible is wrong pt2

[Zylark]

since the thread "why the bible is wrong" have already surpassed 8 pages, i thought it fitting to open a continuing thread, part 2 so to speak.

i'll open with a correction to an oft repeated statement by cottons, that the King James Version (KJV) bible is the most accurate, only true (english) bible, and that the KJV are translated directly from greek and hebrew sources.

well guess what, this is not entirely correct. time for a small history lesson.

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) wrote the first english bible, based on the vulgate (latin) version used by the catholic church. upon completion, it was revised by an assosiate named John Purvis. this was the only english bible up until the 16th century.

William Tyndale was the first to attempt translating the bible to english from scratch, from the original hebrew and greek, rather than the latin version which many saw as flawed. needless to say, the roman catholic church was not amused. Tyndale found himself on the run, and did most his work beeing only a narc from death. in 1526 he finished his translation of the new testament. in 1534 he finished his translation of the old testament. in 1535 he released a revised version of the new testament. and finally, in 1536, the catholic church caught up with him, and he was burned at the stakes.

Miles Coverdale, an unlearned assosiate of Tyndale, was the first to release an "approved" english bible in 1537. most of it consisted of rewritings and copying from Tyndales work. the dead can't complain, right. a flood of translations and revisions followed.

King Henry 8th was the first English king to ask that a bible be placed in the hands anyone who could read. The bible chosen was "the great bible", a work edited by the less-than-scholarly Coverdale.

not everyone could afford this costly "great bible" however, so a cheaper version was made. the "geneva bible". this was mass produced in geneva, switzerland. this translation left a lot to be desired, beeing lopsided and favoring the views of the french religious tyrant of geneva, John Calvin. Its one virtue was that it was cheap, and could be afforded by the masses.

"the great bible" was later revised twice, in the "bishop's bible" of 1568, and the "bishop's bible" of 1602.

enter King James. he wanted a bible that was complete, cheap and accurate. so he sat down a comittee 47 clergy and scholars sat down to create the ultimate english bible. have you ever experienced a comittee creating something new? this comittee certainly did not. they did instead revise the 1602 version of the "bishops bible". itself a revision of the 1568 version, which was a revision of the "great bible" which was a revision of the Tyndale bible, written on the run.

so to put it short and sweet, the KJV is *not* a new translation from original greek and hebrew texts, it is a 4th generation revision of the Tyndale bible.

if you wish to have an accurate translation of the original texts, the Richard Lattimore (1996) translation is regarded by many theologicians and greek/hebrew scholars to be the most accurate. but it doesn't beat the beautifull language of the KJV.

end of history lesson.

[IGotTheCottons]

hmm... that's funny... Zondervan seems to agree with me... they also happen to be the worlds largest translation and publishing (of Bibles) company. where are your sources? because every source i've checked has told me that the KJV was translated from the original greek and hebrew. EVERY source. even opposing sides agree with this (ie, the modern day translations will even agree to this).

[hazyskies]

here is my question, why cant todays scientists and scholars do a version of the bible, and not have it altered, just a straight tr4anslation from the rough hebrew and greek

[Zylark]

first to hazyskies, the Richard Lattimore translation is just what you're asking for, it's a direct translation of the hebrew and greek sources. this version is regarded the most accurate with regards to the translation, and was completed in 1996 by actual hebrew and greek scholars without influence by the somewhat rigid KJV following.

as for zondervan claiming that the KJV is an original translation, well guess what, this publishing house and it's religious supporters have a vested interest in the KJV beeing regarded as the "most accurate" translation. their views are partisan. i'm not saying that the KJV is directly erroneous, but it is not accurate with regards to translation. in fact, the KJV are more poetic than the original, that i guess is also the reason why it's so popular. the beautifull poetic language.

as for sources, try out a local uni history department. maybe even the theological department may help. or do a search on "bible history english" on google. credible (ie non-vested and independent) sources should fill your screen

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Zylark
as for zondervan claiming that the KJV is an original translation, well guess what, this publishing house and it's religious supporters have a vested interest in the KJV beeing regarded as the "most accurate" translation. their views are partisan. i'm not saying that the KJV is directly erroneous, but it is not accurate with regards to translation. in fact, the KJV are more poetic than the original, that i guess is also the reason why it's so popular. the beautifull poetic language.

Zondervan also publishes NIV, RSV, NKJV, ASV, etc... they do publish KJV as well, but they are involved with the modern day versions and also take them as truth. BUT they will even tell you that KJV is a word for word translation of the Hebrew and Greek. i think they'd know a little bit more about the Bible and it's history than some historian considering they are composed mainly of theological scholars who study the history of the Bible and it's texts for a living.