Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I got the following information about Bible translations off of Usenet
    last summer.  I found it rather interesting.  Since it is rather long,
    I will break it up into several replies.
    
From: inco!fontana@uunet.uu.net (Tod Fontana)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bible versions
Date: 5 Jul 90 07:45:58 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems, McLean, VA
Lines: 322
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu
 
Does anyone out there have any facts (not opinions) on the different
types of Bibles out there (King James, New American, etc)?  I'm
curious as to how they originated, how literal their translations are,
how politacally motivated they may or may not be, and how "accurate"
they are?  (I know this demands opinions, but lets try to back it up
with historical or literary fact).  
 
Thanx.
 
[I collect Bible translations as sort of a hobby, so let me try to
summarize the ones I know.
 
"authorized" lineage
  AV, RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV
use concensus scholarship, "formal equivalency"
  NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT
  NIV
  RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV
  JB, NJB
use concensus scholarship, "dynamic equivalency"
  TEV/Good News Bible
  NEB, REB
  Phillips
conservative scholarship, literal
  NASB
conservative scholarship, "format equivalency"
  NKJV
paraphrase
  LB
 
 
 
I. The "Authorized" lineage
 
Just as a matter of history, I'll start by summarizing the
translations that started with the Authorized Version ("King James").
(Note that AV and KJV mean the same thing.  I normally use AV, because
"King James" is really a nickname.)
 
RV - Revised Version - first major attempt to revise the AV, primarily
because of the great number of earlier manuscripts.  Great Britain.
 
ASV - American Standard Version - American equivalent of RV, done
shortly thereafter.  Contained some additional advances in
scholarship.  Tended to be more literal than AV.
 
RSV - Revised Standard Version, yet another American revision, done
primarily because of yet more manuscripts, including Dead Sea Scrolls.
Backed out of literalness of ASV, though still not a very free
translation.  Included scholarly views that were controversial at the
time (like translating Is 7:14 as young woman instead of virgin).  So
it was considered flamingly liberal at the time. Most of these
features are now present in evangelical translations.
 
NASB - New American Standard Bible - in some sense a conservative
reaction to RSV.  Tried to return to the supposed accuracy (i.e.
literalness) of ASV, backed out of some of the more controversial
positions of the RSV.  However did still make use of early manuscripts
(though not very aggressively).
 
NKJV - New King James - I have looked at the preface and a few
passages, but I don't own this.  Seems to be in opposition to the
textual scholarship of the previous revisions: it adopts the "majority
text".  See below.  Updates AV by removing "thee" and "thou", and
other things that are blatantly inappropriate in the 20th Cent., but
otherwise sticks very close to AV.  Presumably this means it is not as
literal as the AV or NASB.  Sees to be a proprietary translation, done
by Thomas Nelson.
 
 
 

II. Current translations
 
I have classified current translations alone two axes: their approach
on textual matters, and their translational theory.  By textual
matters I mean which Hebrew and Greek text they translate.  As I'm
sure you all know, we have many manuscripts.  Textual criticism is the
art of taking these manuscripts and figuring out what the original (if
any -- there are some scholars who think that the whole concept of
"original" may be misleading for the Gospels) was.  I am not competent
to comment on textual matters in the OT. The concensus view, among
both conservative and liberal NT scholars, is that the best text is
that represented by a small number of early manuscripts.  Early in the
20th Cent. this meant primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two major
manuscripts from the early 4th Cent.  Since then we have found papyrii
going back as early as the mid 2nd Cent.  They have generally
supported the accuracy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, though some
details have changed.  The payrii are not complete, but there are
enough of them that we have fairly good coverage from documents of
about 200 A.D.  The documents from before 200 are really fragmentary.
All of this is based on a fairly small number of early documents.  If
you simply count existing Greek manuscripts, they are primarily late,
and mostly follow texts that most scholars think have a number of
minor additions and other changes.  There is now a small group of
scholars who believe that this "majority text" is the best.  It very
similar to the text on which the AV is based.  At one point I thought
this view was completely crackpot, but it appears that some competent
people believe it.  It is still, shall we say, unusual.  I'm not the
best person to give detailed evidence.  But you should know whether
translations are based on concensus scholarship, i.e. use the latest
discoveries in early manuscripts, or stick with the majority text.
 
The other major axis is translational theory.  They are two major
ones: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Formal equivalence
says that we are trying to produce something whose form is as close to
the original as possible.  The same Greek word should be translated
consistently as the same English word where possible, so people can
see the form of the Greek by looking at the English.  This has some
similarity to a literal translation.  However the major formal
equivalence translations aren't really what I'd call literal.  They do
try to deal with idioms.  There are lots of Greek words that can have
many different effects, particularly prepositions and conjunctions.  A
Greek expert can normally tell which effect is meant in a given
passage.  Normally formal equivalence translations will choose
different English words to express this.  But still the intent is to
bring over the form as well as the content of the original.  Dynamic
equivalence says that the goal of translation is to transfer the same
message to the 20th Cent. reader that the original did to the original
reader.  The English sentence structure will often not be at all
similar to the original, since people say things differently in
English than in Greek.  Attempts will be made to bring out the
implications of figures of speech and other implications that were
part of the intended meaning but require special efforts to get across
in English.  This is still intended to be a translation.  It is not
supposed to add any interpretations by the translator.
 

A. The major formal equivalency translations
 
Let me start with the translations that I think are most widely
quoted.  These are all based on the formal equivalency method, and all
accept modern textual scholarship.  The first three are very similar.
They are
 
  NAB, NAB w/2nd ed. NT  (New American Bible) Catholic
  NIV  (New International Version) evangelical Protestant
  RSV, RSV w/2nd ed. NT, NRSV (Revised Standard Version) liberal Protestant
 
These translations all try to stick as close to the original as
possible while still being readable English.  None of them use "thee
and thou", or other obsolete words.  Because they all adopt pretty
much the same translational approach, and they are all based on modern
textual scholarship, they tend to be very similar.  You can find many
verses that are identical or nearly identical.  They are all fine
translations.  There are some minor differences.  First, I think you
can see slight differences in how literal they are.  In the NT at
least here's the order
 
  NAB 2nd edition, RSV - the most literal.  The original RSV took
	very strictly the instructions to stick with AV wording where
	possible
  NRSV - does a bit more to bring out the force of prepositions,
	conjunctions, and various expressions where literal translation
	would not do so
  NIV, NAB 1st edition - go just slightly further than NRSV (though
	in NAB 1st edition there are clear differences in different
	NT books)
 
Other unique features:
  NAB - the OT is uneven.  It was done over decades.  Gen was so
	far out of date that it had to be retranslated, so it ended
	up visibly newer, i.e. less literal and using more modern
	scholarship.  Even the NT tended to be a bit uneven.  The
	same expression would be translated differently in Mat. and 
	Luke.  The 2nd edition smooths this out, but makes it
	more literal.  The newer parts of the OT still tend to have
	a less literal feeling.  However this is still a competent
	translation.  For detailed study of the NT, if you want 
	something as close to the original words as possible but
	still want modern textual scholarship, the 2nd edition might be the
	best translation for you.  In the OT they sometimes rearrange
	the order of passages.  There's some theory that the
	originals got out of order.  I find it annoying.
  NIV - I find this more attractive the more I look at it (though it
	is not one of my default translations).  It tries to go as
	far towards readability as one can go while still showing
	you the form of the original.
  NRSV - still guided by the instruction to stick with AV wording
	where possible.  It's not a bad compromise between literalness
	and readability.  Its most visible feature is an avoidance
	of masculine gender where the original used masculine to
	mean everyone.  "brothers" will be translated "brothers and
	sisters", and "he" as "they" (with the whole passage turned
	plural).  This was not true of RSV and RSV 2nd edition.
 
The textual scholarship of all of these is very similar, but the NAB
2nd edition and NRSV are enough newer that there are a few places
where there are minor differences from NIV.  Most people won't notice
it. (NIV is based on the 2nd edition of the UBS Greek.  NAB 2nd
edition and NRSV are based on the 3rd. NRSV says they had access to
the 4th in draft.)
 

B. Jerusalem Bible
 
The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic translation, based on the French
Bible de Jerusalem.  The 2nd edition is known as the New Jerusalem
Bible.  As far as I can tell, no policies have changed in the NJB.  It
simply used some new manuscripts and has reexamined various decisions.
The Jerusalem Bible basically accepts all the same theories as the
three above, but comes out with a very different result.  Part of it
may be the difference between American and British practice.  But the
Jerusalem Bible tends to be a bit closer to a dynamic equivalence
translation.  It also tends to be slightly wordier.  The OT
scholarship tends to be more "aggressive".  I.e. they think the Hebrew
is corrupt and use an early Greek translation a bit more often than
the American translations (though RSV and NRSV go a bit further in
this direction than NAB and NIV).  They use the original names of God
in the OT.  "Yahweh" is used where other modern translations say "the
LORD".  Mostly the difference is simply stylistic.  I think they
simply did a better job of divorcing themselves from memories of the
AV.  This translation is well regarded by scholars, particularly in
the OT.  In my view the NT seems to be a bit uneven, i.e. to vary
between formal and dynamic equivalence.  It also shuffles parts of
the OT where they think the original is out of order.
 
 

C. Dynamic equivalence translations using concensus scholarship
 
In this section I am going to include
  TEV (Todays English Version), also known as Good News Bible,
	from the American Bible Society (a conservative Protestant
	organization that has managed to produce a liberal
	translation)
  NEB, REB (New English Bible, Revised English Bible) - done by
	a group of "mainline" churches in Great Britain.  REB
	is the 2nd edition of the NEB.  (Actually there were
	a few minor changes made to the NEB after initial publication,
	but it was never called 2nd edition.)
  Phillips, translation of the NT only, done by a well-known
	British scholar.  He was working on the OT, but died before
	finishing it.  (The joke went that it would be called
	Phillips' 66.)
 
Phillips is best thought of as a paraphrase, or maybe a very free
translation.  It was very popular for a few decades after the war.  It
was thought that he did the best job of presenting Paul's thought that
has ever been done.  Sometimes he got carried away and became a bit
too much of a paraphrase.  This was corrected in a 2nd edition.  A lot
of people still think this is the best translation to read simply to
get a sense of things.
 
My favorite is the TEV.  The big challenge in dynamic equivalence
translations is to be systematic.  You don't want to do a formal
equivalence translation and just now and then where you happen to have
a brilliant insight paraphrase one sentence.  Doing this gives a very
uneven feeling.  TEV has a remarkably consistent style, and does a
very good job of bringing out all of the implications implied in the
original but not obvious in a literal translation.  See particularly
Job, which is full of irony, much of which is not visible in other
translations.  Bibles have traditionally become a model of style.
Luther's translation did much to form modern German.  Similarly with
the AV for English.  The TEV is a model of simple, clear language.  I
read it before writing any major technical documents.  Some passages
in the prophets are rendered as prose, with the amount of parallelism
reduced.  This is not done for the more poetical parts, obviously.
They comment that things that come out as good, dignified prose look
silly as poetry in English, so they think translatiing this way does
more justice to the original.  I'd rather have poetry translated with
a bit more formal equivalence.
 
The NEB got rave reviews when it first came out.  It was the first
"official" translation to completely break with the AV tradition, and
also to adopt dynamic equivalence.  Of course "private" translations
such as Phillips and Goodspeed had done so before.  But this was an
official translation.  Like any dynamic equivalence translation, it
clarifies a lot of things.  However I do not like its style and I do
not trust its scholarship.  The style tends to be "high-falutin'", in
my view -- pseudo-literary.  Not King James, but too intentionally
dignified.  It is interesting to see how two translations with the
same theory can be as opposite as TEV and NEB.  Also, its dynamic
equivalence is not as consistently carried out as TEV's.  Its textual
criticism is idiosyncratic.  There are many words, particularly in the
OT, whose meaning isn't known.  But they tend to make guesses that are
rather different that most other scholars.  This translation is not
often quoted by scholars (though to be fair, neither is the TEV).  The
REB updates the scholarship a bit and reexamines some issues, but
doesn't change the basic approach very much.
 

D.  Conservative translations
 
Now we come to two translations that consciously reject concensus
scholarship.  I am not the best source of information on these,
because I don't own any of them.  But I have looked at them, and do
know why they were done.  The first is NASB.  At a time when
translations were becoming less literal and new manuscripts were being
used, the NASB translators believed it was appropriate to return to
the tradition of the ASV.  Thus it is rather literal, and it is rather
more cautious about using newly discovered manuscripts than the RSV
was.  It was intended to be more acceptable to evangelical Christians,
who at that time generally considered the RSV to be the work of the
devil.  (Since then people seem to have gotten over their shock, and
accepted just about everything the RSV did.  The NIV generally goes
further than the original RSV, and has been well received in the
evangelical community.)  I consider it so literal as to be nearly
unreadable.  If you really need this, you should be using an
interlinear edition (original language with a literal translation
written under it).  Note that although it was cautious about new
manuscripts, and rejected some of the more controversial decisions of
the RSV, it didn't really have a clear alternative theory to suggest
(as the NJKV seems to).
 
The NKJV is a more recent translation that seems to have similar
goals.  However this time the ideal is the AV, rather than the ASV.
The AV is probably a better starting point, because the AV really
didn't strike a bad balance between literalness and readability.  It
tends to be more literal than modern translations, but part of that is
that they simply didn't understand some idioms that we do now.
However to be fair the NASB was intended as a hardcore study Bible,
for people who really wanted to know exactly what the original said.
For that purpose, literalness is an asset.  I think NKJV is intended
for more general use.  The OT uses the Dead Sea Scrolls.  However the
NT is produced using the "majority text" theory, which I discussed
above.  (I still think this is a crackpot idea.)  The NKJV has gotten
rid of blatantly out of date language, including "thee" and verbs
ending in "est".  But they've tried to stick with the AV where
possible.
 
Finally, I should really mention the Living Bible.  This is frankly a
paraphrase.  I believe it was done from the RSV.  It has not gotten
good reviews by scholars.  I think you're better off with TEV.  But
I'm not the one to give a detailed review.
 
--clh]
    
    

    I found an interesting example that I believe illustrates the
    distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  The
    book of Amos uses a poetic construct repeatedly:  "For the three crimes
    of x, the four crimes"; this formulation is a flowery way of declaring
    some indefinite number.

    The New Revised Standard Version appears to be using formal equivalence
    in the following translation:

        Thus says the LORD:
        For three transgressions of Damascus,
          and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;  (Amos 1:3)

    On the other hand, The Revised English Bible seems to provide an
    example of dynamic equivalence:

        These are the words of the LORD:
        For crime after crime of Damascus
        I shall grant them no reprieve

    Just for grins, here is how the New Jerusalem Bible expresses it:

        Yahweh says this:
            For the three crimes, the four crimes of Damascus,
            I have made my decree and will not relent:

    -- Mike

I was rather surprised to read how "evangelicals" rejected the RSV (in
the earlier days).  I had never heard or read this before.  In fact,
all denominations of any size were represented in the RSV translation
and one of my seminary professors still believes the RSV to be the best
translation available.  Perhaps this comment was made by someone who had
a particular experience which was not reflective of the general community.

By the way, the RSV came out in 1903 (I think), evangelicals, as a movement,
didn't start until the 1930's and 40's.

Collis

    re .8 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
>By the way, the RSV came out in 1903 (I think), evangelicals, as a movement,
>didn't start until the 1930's and 40's.
    
    According to the "Editor's Preface" in the _The New Oxford Annotated
    Bible (RSV)_, the RSV NT was first published in 1946.  (The copyright
    page confirms this.)  Also, the copyright page states that the OT
    Section is Copyright 1952.
    
    The ASV came out in 1901, and was (obviously) the American revision of
    the KJV, which followed on the heels of the British Revised Version,
    which came out in the late 19th century.
    
    -mark.

Thanks, Mark.  I have been under the illusion for years that the RSV
was first published around 1903.

Collis

    
    
    As I mentioned in the Thanksgiving note, I would like to start my
    journey through the Bible.  Someone gave me a Jerusalem Bible a
    few years ago.  Would you folks recommend that I use this bible,
    or are there other versions to be considered?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    Carole, is that the "Jerusalem Bible" or the "New Jerusalem Bible"?
    
    I think both translations are quite good.  The New Jerusalem Bible
    has many interesting footnotes that contain both textual variants and
    scholarly commentary; the Jerusalem Bible has fewer footnotes, and much
    less in the way of introductory material.  However, I like both
    translations.  As a Catholic Bible, they include the deutero-canonical
    books that are not found in Protestant bibles; having been raised in a
    conservative Protestant church, I personally found it valuable to be
    able to read those additional books.
    
    Both translations, by the way, have the interesting trait of using the
    word Yahweh, without translation, as the word for God in their Old
    Testaments.
    
    -- Mike

Carole,

The Living Bible, similar I believe to the Jerusalem Bible, as the most
popular paraphrase.

As long as you can understand what you're reading, most any version will
do.  (You're looking to do reading, not scholarly research).

The first time I used an NIV Study Bible, I was *extremely* impressed
by the footnotes which helped me immensely in understanding the text.
This is considered an "evangelical" Bible and so the notes do have
an evangelical slant (that's o.k. - I'm an evangelical!), but the main
feature of the notes is that they provide so much more material and food
for thought than simply the text.  Notes in other Bibles that I have read
have not been nearly as informative.

May God bless your reading of His Word.

Collis

    
    
    Thank you Mike.  I'll go home and check to see which one I have,
    and maybe even get in a bit of reading before sleep!
    
    Carole

    
    
    Thank you Collis for the info.  With all of the discussions that
    I have read regarding different versions of the bible, there is
    some confusion about how to approach this.  Guess I'll start with
    the one I have and see what happens from there.
    
    Carole

    I would not recommend the Living Bible.  It is a paraphrased Bible, and
    I don't think it has much to go for it in the way of scholarship.
    
    -- Mike

    I would agree with Mike V.  However, if you've got the $$ and
    interest you can get a Parallel Bible which has 4 translations
    side by side in parallel columns.  The NT that I own has the
    King James, the Amplified, the Living Bible, and the RSV.
    
    I would recommend reading the Bible in a different order than it
    appears.  Try reading Mark or John before Matthew, for example.
    The oldest writing in the NT, chronologically speaking, is usually
    suspected to be Paul's letter to the Galatians.
    
    Peace and love,
    Richard

It was interesting last night at our Bible study of Daniel. In
Daniel 4, there was about 70 some odd verses missing in my New
English Bible that the Jewish scholars Shadrach, Meeshach and
Abed-nego was attributed to have said in praise of God. It
appeared in the Jerusalem Bible, The New American Bible, and
American Bible. It does not show up in the Good News Bible or the
RSV.

calvin

If I remember correctly, these 70 verses are in the Septuagint, but the
Hebrew manuscript evidence for them is entirely lacking.

Collis

    
    
    Thanks everyone for the recommendations!  I went home Monday night
    and checked my bible.....lo and behold it is *not* the Jerusalem
    Bible at all!  It's The New American Bible.  (It must be time to
    retire - I'm suffering from major brain drain ;-)!)  As I recall
    now, my friend had both bibles, but chose to keep the Jerusalem
    Bible for herself.  So, is this version a good one to start with,
    or would it be worth buying a New Jerusalem Bible, or one of the
    others?
    
    This is very confusing %^)!
    
    Carole

    Carole,
    
    I'm not familiar with the Bible you have.  Off hand, I'd say read
    some of it and see how you feel about it.  One more suggestion:
    Don't start with the Revelation.  I know someone who did and then
    threw the entire book away.
    
    I started with Ecclesiates, Job, then Song of Songs.
    
    Love to you,
    Richard

    Carole,
    
    	Bibles *can* be very expensive.
    
    	The che-e-e-pest source I know of is the American Bible Society:
    	1865 Broadway, New York, NY 11023.  The drawback is they have
    	only the TEV (Good News), King James and New King James Versions.
    
    Prices range from 50 cents for individual gospels to under $10.00 for
    deluxe editions, with an average of about $5.00 for a complete Bible.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I agree that Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs are excellent books
    to start with, and they are three of my favorites in the Bible.

    As for my own experience, when I read the Bible a few years ago, for
    the first time since adolescence, I was able to read it with adult eyes
    and a more mature spirituality than I was capable of during the days of
    my youth.  I found upon rediscovering the Bible that I was able to
    appreciate it, despite parts that I might not have liked as well, as a
    wonderful, inspired collection of works.

    I started with the historical books of the Hebrew  Bible (OT), starting
    with Genesis and the first half of Exodus.  I don't know that this was
    the best place to start, but it did have the advantage of providing a
    historical context for much of the rest of the OT.  The Wisdom books
    that Richard mentioned are also wonderful places to start.  Anyway,
    after reading all the great stories of the Patriarchs, the last half of
    Exodus struck me as rather boring by comparison, with all the
    instructions about tent building and the details of various laws.  So I
    skipped past the rest of the Pentateuch and went right to Joshua, and
    read the rest of the Deuteronomistic history, on through II Kings.

    The disadvantage to that approach is that I missed a lot of the
    historical narrative that was buried in the the Pentateuch.  The
    advantage was that I didn't get bogged down so much that I just decided
    to give up.  And the stories in Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I
    Kings, and II Kings are wonderfully entertaining.  Joshua is rather
    violent, and is not always my favorite book to read.  Judges is racy
    reading, with plenty of sex and violence to titilate the imagination. 
    :-) Buried in that history is the book of Ruth, which is a very fine
    short story, and one of my favorite books in the Bible.  I later went
    back and did read the rest of the Pentateuch, including the law.  A
    book worth considering in conjuction with reading the historical
    section of the Hebrew Bible is Richard Friedman's wonderful "Who Wrote
    the Bible?"  This book discusses the state of modern scholarship on the
    Bible, along with some of his own ideas.  It presents a very helpful
    context of the historical background behind the various sections of the
    historical narratives.

    From there, I continued the post-exilic history with Ezra and Nehemiah,
    and then read I and II Chronicles, which is a retelling of the
    Deuteronomistic history.  It is interesting to study these books and
    compare their outlook to that of the Deuteronomistic history.

    I then moved on to the prophets and the wisdom literature.  I enjoyed
    both parts of the Old Testament for their poetry and majesty.  I found
    it helpful to read various commentaries when studying the prophets,
    because of the complexities of their messages and the historical
    context that is often implied.   Jeremiah is something of a jumble, for
    example, with prose oracles intermixed with poetry and autobiographical
    accounts, often in no particular order--and it's a large book.  But it
    is definitely worth reading.  Isaiah, on the other hand, is actually at
    least two different books written at different times, and it is
    sometimes helpful to know that as you read it.  The book of Amos is a
    personal favorite of mine, because of its message of justice and its
    special concern for the plight of the poor.

    The wisdom literature is also interesting reading.  I enjoyed
    Ecclesiastes and Job a great deal, because both deal with some
    important questions of theodicy, an issue that the ancient Hebrews
    seemed to struggle with over time.  I have read the Psalms at various
    times, including more recently with the help various books, such as
    Martin Marty's book, "A Cry of Absence", and Rabbi Harold Kushner's
    book "Who Needs God".  Kushner has written other reflections on books
    of the Bible, including "When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough", a
    reflection on Ecclesiastes, and "When Bad Things Happen to Good
    People", a reflection on Job.

    -- Mike

    Speaking of the prices of Bibles, a good used bookstore might be a
    resource for getting a Bible without paying a lot of money.  For
    example, I have noticed that both Poor Richard's and Four Corners in
    downtown Colorado Springs have large collections of used Bibles.
    
    -- Mike

Another fine piece of advice when obtaining a Bible...(to a generic "you")

Get one you can write in!  

If you feel squeamish about underlining passages, jotting down notes, drawing
arrows pointing out references and such in a $100, leather bound with gold
leaf bible, get a cheap paper back one you can really "tear into". 

Peace,

Jim, with a paperback Jerusalem Bible that cost $10 new.

    Re .28
    
    Good idea!  My "personal" preaching (the one I use during speaking
    engagements) Bible is full of stray marks.
    
    Richard

    
    
    Thanks again for all the insights and pointers!  Mike, your note
    really did make it sound like the bible is a library unto itself.
    Quite a journey!
    
    Carole

re Note 51.23 by WILLEE::FRETTS:

>     Bible at all!  It's The New American Bible.  

        The NAB is the "official" American Catholic Bible.  As with
        most "official" works, it isn't especially "beautiful" as a
        translation, but I use it often (my two reference Bibles are
        the NAB and the (old) Jerusalem Bible -- I also have a four
        translation parallel Bible, but it is so large that I rarely
        use it except when I'm uncertain of a meaning).

        Bob

    .21, .22:
    
    The New American Bible has a footnote here, agreeing with some of what
    Collis said in .22, but disagreeing with part of it:
    
    	3,24-90:  These verses are inspired additions to the Aramaic
    	text of Daniel, translated from the Greek form of the book.
    	They were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, which
    	has not been preserved.  The Church has always regarded
    	them as part of the canonical Scriptures.
    
    
    Some of these verses were used in place of a Psalm reading for a Sunday
    Mass sometime earlier this year (I forget which Sunday, but it tied in
    with the other readings).
    
    The NEB and the Living Bible both omit these verses.
    
    Dick

    	This may not seem to follow the string, but it does indeed relate
    to "English language translations of the Bible", which is the topic
    Mike proposed.
    	Do you all remember the Dead Sea Scrolls ?  They are one of the
    topics discussed in the November Scientific American.
    	"These documents from the first century A.D., most of them
    discovered in the late 1940s and early 1950s at the caves of Qumran and
    other sites in the Judean Desert, constitute the greatest windfall in
    the history of Biblical archaeology. Yet the editors entrusted with the
    largest collection of these documents - at the private Rockefeller
    Museum in East Jerusalem - have not published even half of the trove in
    their 30 to 40 years of stewardship.
    	"Many scholars say that the delay in bringing the scrolls to light
    has become the greatest philological scandal of the century. These
    critics assert that the scrolls have been withheld long enough for many
    historians, theologians and philologists to have qualified in their
    fieldsand performed most of their work without having had access to
    crucial data.
    	"The scrolls are important because they include by far the oldest
    manuscripts of books from the Old Testament and virtually the only
    texts that reflect the thinking of Jews during the period when Rabbinic
    Judaism and early Christianity were forming."
    		Much groussing, charges and counter-charges.
        "Nevertheless, Strugnell (ed: current project head) now promises
    that all the documents in his group's control will be given to the
    printer within seven years. "They may actually be published in 10
    years. You know how scientific publishing goes: you put out a quick
    thing to keep the public happy.""

    I picked up a used paperback copy of the New American Bible last night
    for $3.50.  While perusing it, I was impressed with the cross
    references, and also the commentary which discussed the findings of
    modern scholarship (for example, the introduction to the Pentateuch
    discussed the four main strands of authorship that formed the five
    books.)  I compared a few sample verses with the same verses in the
    NRSV, and found them to be pretty similar; this makes sense, given the
    commentary that indicates that both translations use the technique of
    "formal equivalence."

    -- Mike

    My sister recently bought me "The Student Bible", which is the NIV with
    notes inserted (i.e. "lessons") where pertnent to the text.  Certain
    vital chapters and verses are highlighted in bold text, too.  Sounds
    like a good start (because if I read it as a book, I might not get as
    much out of it the first read through as I would if it had annotations,
    as this one seems to....)
    
    -Jody
    
    

I have heard some people say, in all seriousness, "If God wanted us to have
some other version of the Bible, he wouldn't have written the original in
King James English!" 8-}

The truth of the matter is that the original texts were written in the
everyday language of the times, the King James version is a translation
into the everyday language of the those times, and modern versions are
either a whole new translation using the everyday language of our time
or an attempt to bring an older version in line with the language of
our time.

In the Lucan birth story of King James, for example, it says the shepherds
were "sore afraid."  I personally have never used, nor heard anyone use,
"sore" and "afraid" combined in such a manner.

I personally like the Amplified Bible because it uses multiple words and
descriptors to expand upon the meaning.  But, it does not flow and it is
*not* your basic easy reading.

True, a lot of the poetry is missing in modern versions.  The 23rd Psalm
in the TEV just doesn't have the music found in the King James Version.

Peace,
Richard

Been reading the New King James Version of the Bible.

I like it because it skillfully manages to keep the poetry of the KJV intact
while bringing up to date much of the archaic English usage found therein.

Peace,
Richard

    Nancy M. has stated that the only true Bible is the KJV, old version.
    Can we continue to discuss *why* this is?
    
    Nancy?????
    
    
    Marc H.

    I am not answering for Nancy.  I have heard of this teaching (The KJV
    and no other), however.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 51.39 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     I am not answering for Nancy.  I have heard of this teaching (The KJV
>     and no other), however.
  
        I think that this is just one of the sillier (IMNSHO)
        "traditions" that has become, for some, part of the bedrock
        absolute unquestionable miraculous foundations of their
        faith.

        Once you conclude that faith must be founded on absolutely
        certain and true propositions, then it is easy to imagine all
        sorts of things that God must have done to make sure that you
        know what are those absolutely certain and true propositions.

        Bob

    No I don't wish to get into the discussion... 
    
    The question boils down to *what* are you going to believe and from
    *whom* will you believe it.
    
    There are many arguments in favor of every version of every Bible that
    is currently being published.

re Note 51.41 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     The question boils down to *what* are you going to believe and from
>     *whom* will you believe it.
  
        This presumes (or ignores) an answer to an earlier question: 
        is it *what* you believe or *in whom* you trust that is most
        (or all) important.

        Bob

    Good point, I often speak backwards. ;-)

One of the things that amuses me the most about the KJV-only crowd
is that most of them are unaware that the KJV editions they tend to
have are not the "Authorized Version" because they are missing the
books commonly called Apocrypha.  These books were part of the original
KJV as translated by its translators and were required by law to be
included with all authorized editions.

/john

    RE: .44
    
    In addition, as we have talked about, the original KJV is long gone.
    Changes have been made that predate the RSV.
    
    Marc H.

    So if we think about the Canonization process, someone who says only a
    particular edition of a version of the Bible is authoritative, has
    moved the date of Cannonization to the time of authorizing that
    edition.
    
    

    RE: .46
    
    That just about sums it up.
    
    Marc H.

    I took New Testament Greek in University and asked my Greek professor
    what, in his opinion, was the best English translation of the New
    Testament.  He felt the American Standard Bible was the most literal
    translation.  (Don't get this confused with the NEW American Standard
    Bible.)  The American Standard Bible came out about 1902 as I recall. 
    It never gained wide acceptance as it was very difficult to read and
    understand - because of its almost word for word order translation.  I
    eventually bought one - it was hard to find and very expensive.  While
    I don't use it for Bible reading, I do like it when researching
    something.  Some of the sentences are even in Greek word order.
    
    The bottom line on ANY English translation of the Bible is that none of
    them are very good when compared to the original Greek.  Greek was such
    an incredibly INCREDIBLY precise and rich language, while English is
    not very precise at all.  There are someme concepts Greek has over 40
    words to describe, while English may only have one or two.  All 40
    different Greek words (all of which have slighly different meanings)
    are translated into the SAME English word.  Verbs are a nightmare.  A
    verb in English has only 8 or 9 tenses/genders while the same verb in
    Greek may have 28 or 30.  We poor English speakers loose significantly
    in any translation effort.
    
    The good news is that the central message of Scripture, which is
    Salvation, is clearly conveyed to us - even in English!  The bad news
    is that many of the silly fights and quarells that we get into with
    each other are based upon some English word that may have quite a
    different meaning in the original Greek.  We sometimes get
    unnecessarily involved in issues that - if we went back to the orignial
    Greek - would not be issues at all.  We often judge those who should
    not be judged, and condemn those who should not be condemned because of
    a word or two in the English translations.  Perhaps that is why the
    role of the Holy Spirit speaking to us as individuals is so vital when
    we read the Scriptures.  Listening to that still small voice of God's
    Holy Spirit is so much more important than listening to those around us
    who would impossibly try to interpret Scriptures on our behalf.
    
    Rob
    

re Note 51.48 by SNOC02::LINCOLNR:

>     There are someme concepts Greek has over 40
>     words to describe, while English may only have one or two.  

        Don't confuse expressive power of a language with expressive
        power of particular words in that language.

        Example:  I use ten different symbols to express my numbers,
        my computer uses only two.  Guess which one of us is better
        (in general) at dealing with numbers?

        This is one reason why a slavishly word for word translation
        (such as you describe the American Standard Version) is
        likely to be LESS correct in its expression than one which
        can compensate for the different available meanings of
        individual words in the two languages.

>     All 40
>     different Greek words (all of which have slightly different meanings)
>     are translated into the SAME English word.  Verbs are a nightmare.  A
>     verb in English has only 8 or 9 tenses/genders while the same verb in
>     Greek may have 28 or 30.  We poor English speakers loose significantly
>     in any translation effort.
  
        That is true, in general, ONLY if one insists on translating
        word for word, phrase for phrase, and sentence for sentence.

          
>     Perhaps that is why the
>     role of the Holy Spirit speaking to us as individuals is so vital when
>     we read the Scriptures.  

        Of course that is also why some believe that the teaching
        authority of the Church is so vital when we read the
        Scriptures.

        Bob

>    In addition, as we have talked about, the original KJV is long gone.
>    Changes have been made that predate the RSV.

You have made this assertion, which I contend is false.

A bible which calls itself the King James Version (not NKJV or some
such) should have only typeface and spelling changes.

And the original 1611 version, in facsimile edition (including the
Apocrypha) is on sale in many good bookstores.  Would you like to
buy one?

/john

  In some large family Bibles there is a section of 14 books called
  the Apocrypha - a group of spurious books that were rejected from
  our present canon of Scripture because they did not pass the tests
  required of inspired books.

    1. They were not written or approved by a prophet

    2.  They were not recognized by the Jews as inspired and a part of
    Scripture.

    3.  They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the apostles,
    a fact that is more striking when we realize that Paul even quoted
    twice from heathen poets.

    4.  The last OT prophet predicted that the next messenger coming
    to Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal. 3:1). 
    Most of the Apocryphal books were written between the period
    between Malachi and Christ.

    5.  Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some
    it is virtually disowned (2 Maccabees 2:23; 15:38).

    6.  The books contain statements at variance with Bible history.

    7.  They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to
    doctrines of Scripture.

    8.  Josephus, who lived in the time of the apostles, did not
    regard the apocryphal books as Scripture.  He stated that the OT
    books (the ones in our present version) were the only inspired
    writings (see Josephus, Book I, section 8).

    9.  The apocryphal books were not a part of the ancient versions
    of Scripture.  They were first added after 300 AD.  The Laodecian
    council in 363 AD rejected them as being uninspired, thus proving
    that by that time some were claiming inspiration for them.  (They
    first appeared in the Vatican version of the 4th century.  At the
    council of Trent in 1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as
    inspired and added them to their modern versions of Scripture. 
    They are : Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and
    2 Maccabees).

    10.  Philo and others did not regard the Apocryphal books as
    inspired

    11.  There is a lack of prophetic element in them;  and there is an
    apparent imitation of the inspired OT books.

    12.  They show too free use of the imagination, which has given
    rise to silly stories, and the lack of spiritual force and power.
    

    -1
    
    
    Good snarf I got there on that one,eh?
    
    Also, John I know you have issue with this... and as I recall there was
    discussion about this in CHRISTIAN... I won't debate it... feel free as
    I know you will to place in your rebuttal...
    
    

    RE: .50
    
    Maybe so...*but*, the fact remains that the KJV that you buy in the
    store had changes made before the RSV came along. Changes were made
    in the 1800's.
    
    The only reason that this is important, is that people that claim the
    KJV is the only one, should use a copy of the 1611 one to be true
    to themselves.
    
    Marc H.

    Marc,
    
    I have the 1611 version of the KJV without the Apocrypha... 
    
    

    Now, as I understand it, the 1611 Version was translated in the common
    language of 1611 England.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    That is correcteth. :-)

>    1. They were not written or approved by a prophet

Neither were Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Job, or Ecclesiastes.

>    2.  They were not recognized by the Jews as inspired and a part of
>    Scripture.

Neither is the entire New Testament.  Want to give that up for the same
reason?

>    3.  They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the apostles,
>    a fact that is more striking when we realize that Paul even quoted
>    twice from heathen poets.

Neither are many of the other Old Testament books.  Christ and the Apostles
quoted extensively from the Law and the Prophets, and very little from any
of the literary books.

>    4.  The last OT prophet predicted that the next messenger coming
>    to Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal. 3:1). 
>    Most of the Apocryphal books were written between the period
>    between Malachi and Christ.

These books are in the category of historical and poetic books (as are the
books in the list in reply to #1).

>    5.  Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some
>    it is virtually disowned (2 Maccabees 2:23; 15:38).

Neither is it claimed by the authors of many other books.

>    6.  The books contain statements at variance with Bible history.

Not true.

>    7.  They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to
>    doctrines of Scripture.

Also not true.

>    8.  Josephus, who lived in the time of the apostles, did not
>    regard the apocryphal books as Scripture.  He stated that the OT
>    books (the ones in our present version) were the only inspired
>    writings (see Josephus, Book I, section 8).

Josephus was a Jew who did not recognize the authority of the Church.

>    9.  The apocryphal books were not a part of the ancient versions
>    of Scripture.  They were first added after 300 AD.  The Laodecian
>    council in 363 AD rejected them as being uninspired, thus proving
>    that by that time some were claiming inspiration for them.  (They
>    first appeared in the Vatican version of the 4th century.  At the
>    council of Trent in 1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as
>    inspired and added them to their modern versions of Scripture. 
>    They are : Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and
>    2 Maccabees).

This is not true.  They were in the Greek bibles used by the early
Church.  References can be found to them in second century writings
by early church fathers.  Lists distinguish between the scriptures
used only by Christians and those used by the Jews and Christians
alike.  The Laodecian council is a local council with no authority
beyond its geography.

One reason these books were considered to be separate from the Hebrew
bible was that all known versions were in Greek.  However, recent
archaeology has uncovered Hebrew or Aramaic versions of some of them
in the Qumrun caves.

The Council of Trent stated that there had never been any doubt within
the Church about all of those 14 translated by the KJV translating team
except for 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.  Your source is
mistaken, because Roman Catholic bibles prior to Trent included all of
the 14 books in the KJV Apocrypha (where do you think the KJV translators
got them?); after Trent all of them were still included (and are today)
except that 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were placed in an
Appendix.  The Greek Church uses the Prayer of Manasseh in its regular
daily worship, as a Canticle.

>    10.  Philo and others did not regard the Apocryphal books as
>    inspired

Philo was a Jew.  He didn't recognize the NT as inspired either.  Want
to trust him?

>    11.  There is a lack of prophetic element in them;  and there is an
>    apparent imitation of the inspired OT books.

What lack?  Any greater lack than, say, Esther?  Without the complete
version of Esther in the complete KJV, Esther doesn't even contain any
reference at all to God.

One of my favorite prophetic statements appears in the Wisdom of Solomon;
I was once fortunate enough to find Christmas cards containing this KJV
text:

	For while all things were in quiet silence, and night was
	in the midst of her swift course, thine Almighty Word leaped
	down from heaven, out of thy royal throne.

>    12.  They show too free use of the imagination, which has given
>    rise to silly stories, and the lack of spiritual force and power.
    
Now you're really flirting with the fiery furnace.  You'll end up in
the belly of the beast if you keep this up.

/john

>    Maybe so...*but*, the fact remains that the KJV that you buy in the
>    store had changes made before the RSV came along. Changes were made
>    in the 1800's.

Other than the removal of the Apocrypha and changing "happinefs" to
"happiness", I believe you are mistaken.  All editions in bookstores
claiming to be the King James Version are the original.

The changes in the 1800s precede the RSV, you are correct.  But they
all have names such as "The Revised Version" and "The American Revised
Version."

/john

    John you failed to put IMHO on several of your responses...
    
    :-)
    
    Love you,
    Nancy

    John,

    Thanks for all the information. It's nice to see you around here again.

    You said, "All editions in bookstores claiming to be the King James
    Version are the original". Yet many (most?) of these don't include the
    Apocrypha. Earlier I thought you said the King James Version originally
    included the Apocrypha. I don't understand how there can be two
    versions of the Bible in a bookstore, one with the Apocrypha and one
    without, both claiming to be "KJV"? Does the original KJV contain the
    Apocrypha or not?

    I'm not trying to make a big deal our of this, since I don't use the
    KJV myself (I do have a copy online, though). I'm just curious and
    don't like being any more confused than is absolutely necessary.

    
    	Eric

    RE: .58
    
    No, I don't believe that all the changes to the KJV had new names
    attached to them.
    
    I'll check into it some, as we can't proceed without hard data.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .54
    
    Well, if that is your reference work, then so be it. Case closed!
    
    My interest is not to change you...just understand the fundamentalist 
    culture for future use.
    
    By the way, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that strict belief
    in a particular translation makes sense if you hold the Bible to
    be strictly correct as written. After all, if every single thing in the
    Bible is to be literally true as written, then you have to have a 
    single reference work.
    
    Marc H.

re .60

Am I really writing that unclearly?

The KJV, as sold in bookstores, contains the original text of the 1611
KJV, except for spelling and typeface changes.

Most editions of the KJV sold in bookstores since 1973 do not contain the
books commonly called Apocrypha, even though these books were part of the
Authorized Version of 1611.  However, the text contained in bibles sold as
"The King James Version" has not been revised since 1611 other than to
update spelling and typefaces.

Bibles which are revisions of the KJV are sold under different names, such
as "The English Revision of 1881" or "The American Revision of 1901" or
"The Revised Standard Version of 1952" or "The New King James Bible".

Clear now?  Was it really not clear before?  Did not the first of the
two sentences in my first paragraph in .58 and the discussion we were
having about revisions make it clear what the context of the second
sentence (the one you quoted) was?

/john

    RE: .63
    
    Although written in clear terms, I still believe you are wrong,
    but, I owe the file some data. 
    
    If nothing else, we all will learn something new.
    
    Marc H.
    

    John,

    This is what I gather from your note:

    - The original 1611 KJV Bible contained the Apocrypha.
    - Most KJV bibles sold in bookstores since '73 don't contain the
      Apocrypha. (Those before, did.)
    - The words in a KJV Bible have only been corrected for typo's in
      spelling.

    Therefore :

    - If someone says they have a 1611 KJV they should have the Apocrypha.
    - For 362 years when one claimed to have a KJV that meant: OT, NT and
      Apocrypha.
    - The KJV has been edited into two editions: one with the Apocrypha and
      one without.
    - One can assume nothing, with regard to inclusion of the Apocrypha,
      when someone today claims to have a KJV Bible. 
    - "The King James Version" refers to the text and not the content of
      the Bible.

    > Clear now?

    Better.

    > Was it really not clear before?  Did not the first of the two sentences
    > in my first paragraph in .58 and the discussion we were having about
    > revisions make it clear what the context of the second sentence (the
    > one you quoted) was?

    Call me a dullard, but don't question my intentions... especially when
    they were clearly stated in my question. Either you think I didn't
    understand, in which case you simply provide more information, or you
    think I'm just trying to annoy you, in which case you ask the above
    questions.

    You apparently don't bear fools lightly. I'll keep that in mind.


    	Eric

        

    >You apparently don't bear fools lightly. I'll keep that in mind.
    
    Many don't.

	I thought the Bible was supposed to be error free throughout the ages,
translations, etc? Do typo's not count as errors or are they just glossed over
upon as an, "It has not been revealed to us yet" type of thing?


Glen

    RE: .63
    
    Covert is correct, I was wrong. The KJV when corrected for errors
    had a new name attached to it. The KJV stayed with the errors.....
    
    Marc H.

    I've shared this with some of the readers in other conferences, but the
    information is still valid.
    
    First of all, there are secular historical accounts that support the 
    events written about in the Bible (examples mentioned below). It is used 
    as a reference text in the studies of ancient history.
    
    There are many literature tests that can be applied to historical 
    documents, including the Bible, to verify their reliability.  The first 
    test is bibliographical in nature. As Josh McDowell explains, "...an 
    examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us.  In 
    other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are 
    the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time 
    interval between the original and extant copy" (vol. 1, 39).  He further 
    explains, "There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the 
    New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other 
    early versions and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions 
    of the New Testament in existence today.  No other document of antiquity 
    even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the
    "Iliad" by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. 
    The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century" 
    (vol. 1, 39).  Based on these facts, the Bible far exceeds all ancient 
    writings in having the most manuscripts available today and passes the 
    first literature test.
    
    The second test is one of textual comparison among the manuscripts for 
    variations. McDowell tells the reader that the New Testament contains 
    20,000 lines of which 40 are in question.  This equates to 400 words. The  
    "Iliad" has about 15,600 lines and 764 of those lines have questionable 
    authenticity.  McDowell writes, "The national epic of India, the 
    'Mahabharata', has suffered even more corruption.  It is about eight 
    times the size of the  Iliad and the  Odyssey together, roughly 250,000 
    lines.  Of these, some 26,000 lines are textual corruptions (10%)" (vol. 1,
    43).  Geisler and Nix further explain that, in determining textual purity, 
    one single word misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts is counted as 
    3,000 variations (McDowell, vol. 1, 44). They go on to explain that only 
    400 discrepancies were discovered in all of the New Testament manuscripts 
    and only 50 of those were significant. Not one of the discrepancies
    changed a tenet of the Christian faith. The majority of the discrepancies 
    were attributed to spelling or style. When the New Testament analysis was 
    done, the manuscripts were determined to be 98.33% pure  (McDowell, vol. 1,
    44).  This proves that the Bible is also the most error free ancient 
    writing.  These facts also disprove critics who claim that the Bible's 
    multiple translations do not agree with each other and are subject to
    personal interpretation.  Given the integrity of the Bible thus far, the 
    evidence for Jesus being who he claimed to be is growing stronger.

    The next literature test is a dating procedure method to determine the age 
    of the manuscripts based on materials, letter size and form, punctuation, 
    text divisions, ornamentation, color of ink, and texture or color of 
    parchment (McDowell, vol. 1, 46).  The oldest existing fragment of the New
    Testament is in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England.  Rylands 
    comments, "Because of its early date and location (Egypt), some distance 
    from the traditional place of composition (Asia Minor), this portion of 
    the Gospel of John tends to confirm the traditional date of the 
    composition of the Gospel about the end of the 1st century"  (McDowell, 
    vol. 1,  46).  This defeated theories by many skeptics who claimed the 
    Gospel of John was not written until the year 160. Of the thousands of
    manuscripts in existence, some of the most notable are:   Bodmer Papyrus 
    II (150-200 A.D.) located in the Bodmer Library of World Literature and 
    containing most of John; Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), located in the 
    Vatican Library, and containing nearly all the Bible; and   Codex 
    Sinaiticus   (350 A.D.) located in the British Museum and containing 
    almost all of the New Testament and over half of the Old Testament.   
    Codex Sinaiticus  was discovered by Dr. Constantin Von Tischendorf in the 
    Mount Sinai Monastery in 1859.  Codex Alexandrinus (400 A.D.) is located in
    the British Museum and is written in Greek, contains almost the entire 
    Bible; Codex Bezae (450 A.D.) is located in the Cambridge Library and 
    contains the Gospels and Acts not only in Greek but also in Latin  
    (McDowell, vol. 1,  47-8).  The earliest known version of the Gospel of 
    John mentioned above proves that it was written shortly after the events 
    of Jesus' life occurred.  John's gospel also happens to be one of the 
    most detailed versions of Christ's life recorded in the New Testament.  
    This proves that the events of Christ's life actually happened when
    historians claim they did.
    
    The reliability of various versions of the original manuscripts is the 
    next literature test. Since Christianity has always been a missionary 
    faith, many ancient manuscripts of the Bible, in various languages, have 
    been discovered. Christian missionaries were responsible for the Bible 
    being translated, despite the fact that ancient literature was rarely 
    translated into foreign languages.  The earliest versions of the Syriac and
    Latin versions of the New Testament were dated around 150 A.D., which is 
    close to the time of the originals.  Given the date of the translated 
    copies, they are just as authentic as the original manuscripts.

    The next test used is in external sources that substantiate the 
    authenticity of that work.  For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that 
    the four Gospels were written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to 
    the Roman Empire.  They were all confirmed to be written between 50-70 A.D. 
    Another example of an external source confirming the Bible is found in
    the work   Eusebius,  in his  Ecclesiastical History III. 39. McDowell 
    explains that it "... preserves the writings of Papias, the bishop of 
    Heirapolis (130 A.D.) which Papias got from John the disciple"  (vol. 1,  
    63).  
    
    Finally, the last test is due to confirmation by archaeology discoveries.  
    William F. Albright comments, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has 
    confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.  The
    excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical 
    schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases of which still 
    appear periodically, has been progressively discredited.  Discovery after 
    discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has 
    brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of 
    history" (McDowell, vol. 1,  65).
    
    Based on the previous literature tests applied to the Bible, it has been 
    proven to be historically accurate and reliable.  Jesus actually did 
    exist, despite the claims of some critics.  If the Bible is true, and 
    recalls the events of Jesus life, then the Nazarene had to have existed. 
    There are also several non-biblical sources that verify the historicity of
    Jesus.  One of the more notable people who refer to Jesus is: Cornelius 
    Tacitus (born 52-54 A.D.), a Roman historian, Governor of Asia in 112 A.D., 
    son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of Britain 80-84 A.D.  
    While writing of the reign of Nero, he alludes to the death of Christ and 
    to the existence of Christians in Rome.  Flavius Josephus (born 37 A.D.), 
    was a Jewish historian, and he also refers to Jesus in his books.  
    Josephus became a Pharisee at age 19, in 66 A.D. he was the commander of 
    Jewish forces in Galilee.  After being captured, he was attached to Roman 
    headquarters, and wrote of Christ's trial with Pilate and his death by 
    crucifixion.  Finally, the recent Archko Volume   release by the Vatican 
    Library contains the official documents written by the courts in the days 
    of Jesus.  It also contains official documents from the Sanhedrin and
    Talmud, which was the Hebrew legal authorities. This volume contains a 
    letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, to 
    explain away the commotion surrounding Jesus'  trial. In the letter, 
    Pilate even gives a brief description of Jesus' appearance. There are 
    several more references, but they will be skipped for the sake of brevity.
    The conclusion one should reach here is that any serious historian cannot 
    dispute the fact that Jesus existed and that the Bible is the most 
    accurate, reliable, ancient text.  
    
    Sources:
    "McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Volume 1.   San
          Bernadino: Here's Life Publishers, 1979."

  >I thought the Bible was supposed to be error free throughout the ages,
  >translations, etc? 

Is there a reason that you continue to recite such trash after have 
been provided correct information time after time after time?

In semi-frustration,

Collis

    
    Re.70
    
    Can you please provide the footnotes for the Mahabharata information?
    I'd be interested in seeing where those figures came from originally.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, it's at the bottom of the reply.

    Re.73
    
    I meant the footnotes from the books themselves.  Where did the authors
    of the works you cited gather this information?
    
    Cindy

    I'll have to get back to you on that.

    "The national epic of India, the Mahabharata, has suffered even more
    corruption.  It is about 8 times the size of the 'Iliad' and the
    'Odyssey' together, roughly 250,000 lines.  Of these, some 26,000 lines
    are textual corruptions (10%)."  
    
    Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix.  "A General Introduction to the
    Bible." Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.  pg. 367
    
    My source quotes this source and I don't have Geisler & Nix's book. 
    Sorry but that's the best pointer I can provide.
    
    Mike

re: corruption...

I'm given to understand that many of these works, The Iliad, many books of 
scripture, including much of the Bible are originally from oral tradition;
they are the stories told from one generation to the next.  Written language
wasn't around to store them exactly or make them available to study with
scrutiny. (And that wasn't particularly important to the general audience 
until much, much later.) 

As such, it is very hard to define corruption.  The length, various sections, 
and such varied with the audience.  (Imagine sitting through someone reciting 
a 10,000 line epic from memory.  Imagine TELLING one.  Imagine telling it
again with the exact same wording.)  Such variations have little to do with
corruption, and more to do with the focus of the story teller.  When they were
finally written down, they were expanded to include all their variations. 
Perhaps that is why we have multiple creation stories in the Bible, and other
paralleled passages.  Each was from a different focus of the story tellers.
Once they were written down, of course, they COULD be made into a uniform 
standard version that could be scrutinized. 

What was generally NOT corrupted before they were written down was their basic
meaning.  That which defined a nation and held it together with a common
heritage.  The things that are more important than the exact word usage. 

This in no way degrades the importance or value of such writings.

This line of thinking is explored in the book _The Design of Everyday Things_
by (I forget the author) who studied oral tradition in Hungary where it is
still in use in some places. 

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  Of course one can always claim "God made sure everything came out 
perfectly", but that does not sit well with my particular theology.

    Jim,
    
    I agree that perhaps corruption is not an adequate word to describe the
    process.  I totally agree with you regarding the process of moving from
    oral tradition to written tradition.  What was ultimately written down
    had evolved from the first telling of the story.
    
    But there is another process that took place as well.  The word
    Redaction describes it.  Once the material was written down, it still
    went through change.  For instance, it is believed by many that the old
    testament was written and then during the time of the exile, the
    editors significantly changed what was written in order to create a
    Judaism that set itself clearly appart from the surrounding cultures so
    that Jews would maintain their identity as Jews during the time of
    exile.  It was here that the legalistic requirements became very
    important.  Circumcision, dietary laws, Kosher eating, etc. 
    Requirements that clearly set the Jews apart.
    
    That is also described in Paul's letter and the deutero Pauline
    letters.  Once one decides to accept the evidence that Timothy, Titus,
    Ephesians, Coleseums, 2 Thesolloneans were not written by Paul, then
    one can see the subtle shifts in theology, sociology,
    institutionalization and purpose.  Going back to the undisputed
    letters, one can find in parts of Corinthians, Romans, and Philipians
    evidence of the merging of letters and the editing of letters.  Some of
    the editing can be traced to the same trends that can be seen for
    example in the deutero Pauline letters.
    
    For example, Timothy, is much more clear and Conservative regarding the
    role of women in the church than the Pauline letters themselves.  At
    the same time there are passages in 1 Corinthians that look like they
    are additions to the letter and look like they in fact attempt to
    impose the conservative views of the time of the writing of Timothy
    onto the Corinthian letter.  The result is that many scholars feel that
    what has been for centuries believed to be Paul's view of the position
    of women in the church, was in fact not Paul's view at all.
    
    I guess if those assumptions are true, then we do have a corruption of
    Paul's writtings both in the assumptions that have stood until modern
    Biblical criticism that books not written by Paul were in fact written
    by Paul, and the actual editing and changing of Paul's writing to
    reflect later institutionalized assumptions.
    
    I am rambling as I am considering the topic as I am writing.  I guess I
    do feel that Corruption may be an adequate term to describe the
    altering of Paul's writings but perhaps not an adequate term to
    describe the altering of OT writtings.
    
    Patricia
    

Hi Patricia,

Yes, redaction.  I agree, and thank you for the expansion, especially your
information about Paul's writings.  That does sound more like corruption as we 
know it.  

Peace,

Jim

                                                  
    Thanks Mike, I'll pass it along to my various Hindu and Sanskrit scholar
    friends to get their comments.  
    
    I'll be taking a beginner Sanskrit intensive at the end of May with 
    Vyaas Houston (18 years teaching Sanskrit at Columbia University), 
    and will also be meeting with David Frawley around that time too, who
    is head of the Institute for Vedic Studies in New Mexico (and a really
    great person too.)  He is the only western Vedacharya (Vedic teacher)
    recognized by the Vedic scholars in India.
    
    Cindy

>and such varied with the audience.  (Imagine sitting through someone reciting 
>a 10,000 line epic from memory.  Imagine TELLING one.  Imagine telling it
>again with the exact same wording.)  Such variations have little to do with
    
    Imagine writing it down under the divine inspiration of an eternal 
    (I Timothy 1:17), omnipotent (Revelation 19:6), omnipresent 
    (Psalm 139:7-12), omniscient (Romans 11:33), perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), 
    and holy (I Peter 1:16) GOD!
    
    There's a real danger in approaching God's Holy Word with such a
    condescending attitude (at least that's my perception in here).  As
    Mark Metcalfe said today in the other conference, 
    
"If you want the scripture references for .37, here they are.  If the Bible
is just a book, continue to ignore the words (at your peril).

Isaiah 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall
not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it
shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

2Chronicles 7:14  If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble
themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; the n
will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Exodus 20:7  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for
the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!

Matthew 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name
done many wonderful works?
 23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.
 24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
 25  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
 26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
 27  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
 28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were
astonished at his doctrine:
 29  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

re: Note 51.81 by Mike "no D in Phoenix" 
                                -< be careful >-

>    Imagine writing it down under the divine inspiration of an eternal 
>    (I Timothy 1:17), omnipotent (Revelation 19:6), omnipresent 
>    (Psalm 139:7-12), omniscient (Romans 11:33), perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), 
>    and holy (I Peter 1:16) GOD!

Like I said in my p.s., Mike.  Your mileage may vary...
    
>    There's a real danger in approaching God's Holy Word with such a
>    condescending attitude (at least that's my perception in here).  

I assure you your perception is wrong.

Peace,

Jim

From the HELL topic:

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 974.102                          HELL                            102 of 108
FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"              5 lines  27-SEP-1994 12:23
                    -< not an insult, just an observation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I noticed a lot of passages in the RSV strip Christ of His Divinity as
    well.  It more than explains the attraction from those that uphold the
    NWT.
    
    Mike

================================================================================
Note 974.105                          HELL                            105 of 108
GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      11 lines  27-SEP-1994 13:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .102 Mike

>    I noticed a lot of passages in the RSV strip Christ of His Divinity as
>    well.  It more than explains the attraction from those that uphold the
>    NWT.
    
The RSV translators were attempting to translate the most reliable
manuscripts available as accurately as possible.  If this "stripped Christ
of His Divinity" that's the fault of the manuscripts, not the translators.

				-- Bob

================================================================================
Note 974.108                          HELL                            108 of 108
FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"              8 lines  27-SEP-1994 16:05
                        -< not the manuscripts' fault >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The RSV translators were attempting to translate the most reliable
>manuscripts available as accurately as possible.  If this "stripped Christ
>of His Divinity" that's the fault of the manuscripts, not the translators.
    
    Try reading a Hebrew & Greek Interlinear Bible some time (*DIRECT* from
    the manuscripts) and tell me it's not the fault of the translators!
    
    Mike

Mike,

What verses in the RSV do you think strip Jesus of his divinity?  What do
the Interlinear bibles show as the true translations?  Are the Interlinear
bibles and the RSV based on the same manuscripts?

				-- Bob

>What verses in the RSV do you think strip Jesus of his divinity?  
    
    Bob, there are several posted in topic 907.  One that comes to mind off
    the top of my head is in Romans 9:5.
    
Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    There have been several poor translations of this verse by scholars who
    deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.  The RSV is one of them.  The RSV
    handles the translation so blasphemously that it cannot even be
    considered an accurate rendering.  In Greek verse 5 reads, "...as
    concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed
    forever."  Here Paul plainly declares that Christ is God over all.  The
    RSV turns this verse into a doxology, and so removes the force of
    Paul's declaration of Christ's Deity: "...according to the flesh, is
    the Christ.  God who is over all be blessed forever."  This
    interpretation changes the meaning of the text.  Paul affirms Christ's
    Deity throughout his Epistles, and this verse is one of his strongest
    and clearest affirmations.
    
    >What do the Interlinear bibles show as the true translations?  
    
    Actually you don't even have to go that far, but the Interlinears are
    more convenient since they have the direct Hebrew/Greek translations along 
    with the KJV right in front of you.  You can see for yourself the
    differences.  The English versions that Bible scholars consider to
    be the most accurate are the KJV and NAS.  Those versions italicize
    words that aren't in the original manuscripts, but were added for
    readabilty.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the keyed number
    Hebrew/Greek dictionaries is priceless in this respect.  You can look
    up the orignal words and their definitions yourself in all the passages
    where Christ asserts His Deity.
    
    >Are the Interlinear bibles and the RSV based on the same manuscripts?
    
    Supposedly.  
    
    Mike

re Note 51.85 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Actually you don't even have to go that far, but the Interlinears are
>     more convenient since they have the direct Hebrew/Greek translations along 
>     with the KJV right in front of you.  You can see for yourself the
>     differences.  The English versions that Bible scholars consider to
>     be the most accurate are the KJV and NAS.  Those versions italicize
>     words that aren't in the original manuscripts, but were added for
>     readabilty.  

        A "direct" translation, if by "direct" you mean simply word
        for word, is generally a bad translation (not just for
        readability's sake, but for meaning as well).

>     Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the keyed number
>     Hebrew/Greek dictionaries is priceless in this respect.  You can look
>     up the orignal words and their definitions yourself in all the passages
>     where Christ asserts His Deity.
  
        A proper translation is far more than just the sum of the
        meanings of individual words.  There's absolutely nothing
        wrong with knowing the original words and their meanings, but
        simply knowing them in no way enables an otherwise untrained
        reader to be an adequate judge of a skilled translator.

        Bob

    We agree, Bob.  The problem is when translators incorporate their
    personal agendas instead of just properly translating what's there.
    
    Mike

Re: .87 Mike

>    The problem is when translators incorporate their
>    personal agendas instead of just properly translating what's there.

Without knowing Greek, I don't think you've shown that the RSV translators
have incorporated their personal agendas.  It's more likely that they
believed that their translation more accurately reflected the meaning of
the Greek.

In fact, it might be KJV-conservatives who are incorporating their personal
agendas, by rejecting any translation that "strips Christ of His Divinity".

Where is Collis Jackson when I need him?  I know Collis stuck up for the
RSV in the past.

				-- Bob

    Bob, the KJV agrees with the Greek, the RSV doesn't.  Check out the
    verse for yourself if you don't believe what I wrote.
    
    Mike

Mike,

Since I don't know Greek I can't compare the KJV and the RSV to see which
translation is closer to the Greek.  What I can do, though, is to send
mail to my parents, who are United Methodist ministers, and see if they
can find anything about this in their numerous reference books.

				-- Bob

    I was stumped on a Bible question by a co worker.  He was looking for
    information on the Darvey version?  
    
    He seems to think it is associated with the KJV.
    
    I've never heard of it.
    
    Anyone have any info?
    
    Patricia