need it for research purposes but I can't find it :D
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (89)
sorted by:
The oldest Bible (OT) in existence is the Septuagint (285 BC). All original Bibles (OT+NT) are copies of earlier versions. The earliest manuscripts is your earliest source to which the Bible is based on. These include the Uncials, papyrii, Syraic, etc. All Protestant bibles are based on the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Talmudic scribes that recreated a written 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other sources. The written Hebrew of the Israelites is lost in antiquity and the reason why the Greek Septuagint was written. If you are looking for an 'original bible', it doesn't really exist. If you are looking for early bibles translated to English, the process of translation is affected by many things, but most importantly by the theological and political bias of the translator. All of the English translations have a few problems in common. First, none of them are based upon an accurate source text. Also, most were made before the time of modern textual discovery and contain hundreds of interpolations and textual inaccuracies. All except Brenton's and Thomson's translations of the Septuagint are based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Latin Vulgate. Secondly, all the translations are the result of theological bias on the part of the translators. They incorporate theological euphemisms and archaic language that do not represent the true meaning of the original languages.
Early Protestant bibles: -- Wyche's Bible. First version was 1384 AD. Translated from the Latin Vulgate.Second version was completed by John Purvey in 1397.
-- Coverdale's Bible. First complete printed edition of the English Bible, published in 1535. However, like its predecessors, the manuscripts from which it was based were far from the original. In fact, it was a translation of the Luther Bible and was based on the Pharasaic written Masoretic Text.
-- Matthew's Bible. This translation was made in 1537 by John Rogers, an assistant of Tyndale under the alias of Thomas Matthew. It was based entirely on the work of Tyndale and Coverdale and printed under the King's License, as the third edition of Coverdale's Bible had been.
-- Taverner's Bible. This was an unimportant revision of the Matthew's Bible appearing in 1539. the work of Richard Taverner.
-- The Great Bible. This appeared in 1539 and underwent seven versions. It was made mandatory that all parish churches own a copy.It was essentially a revision of the Coverdale's bible based upon the Matthew's Bible and therefore, was still not based on the original manuscripts.
-- Cromwell's Bible. This was the name given to the 1539 edition of the Great bible as it was produced under the direction of Thomas Cromwell.
-- Cranmer's Bible. This was the name given to the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. It contained a prologue by Cranmer.
--Geneva Bible. This Bible was first published in 1560, the work of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson. It provided nothing new in terms of an accurate translation as it was based upon the Great Bible and Mathew's Bible. However, it was the first to be divided into verses following the model of Robert Stephen's Greek-Latin Testament of 1537. It was also known as Breeches Bible, Goose Bible, and Place-Maker's Bible, because of mistakes in various editions. It became popular because of the notes published with it.
-- The Bishop's Bible. This Bible, which appeared in 1568, was merely a revision of the Great Bible made in order to combat the popularity of the Geneva Bible.
-- The Douai Bible. Also known as the Rheims and Douai Version, this was a translation of the Vulgate made by English Roman Catholics. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1583 and the Old Testament in 1609 at Douai.
--King James Version or Authorized Version. First published 1611. This translation was the result of 47 men working at the appointment of King James I. King James. By the constraints issued for the construction of the Bible, it was based largely on the Bishop's Bible, although Tyndale's Matthew's Coverdale's and the Geneva Bible were consulted. Since the Talmudic Masoretic Hebrew was used as the authority of the Old Testament (and not the Latin as before) many of the Old Testament translators, who made up the bulk of the team, were trained in Talmudic Jewish synagogues in preparation for the work, At the time of the translations, of the few manuscripts available to them, none were older than 1000 AD (with the exception of the very corrupt Besae uncial). In many parts, no Greek manuscripts were available for the New Testament, such as in Revelations, where the Latin was translated back from the Greek and then into English. This was not the first bible to be authorized by the throne of England, and it was never even accepted by homosexual King James himself, but only called authorized because it was authorized to be printed.
These are the earliest English versions of bibles. The Revered Version, as it was named, appeared in 1881 for the NT and 185 for the OT. It was a revision of the Authorized Version (King Jame's). The rest of the bibles are 20th Century versions.
I have an Anointed Standard Version New Testament that is an excellent Bible. It is no longer in publication and on Amazon is going for about a $1000 these days.
I wish yo well on your endeavor. Use Lexicons like Liddell-Scott, Thayer's or even Strong's for understanding the Geek meaning. Be wary of the Hebrew because it is a recreated written language of 1000 AD. The ancient written Hebrew was lost in history about a thousand years before. In 285 BC, 72 scribes translated the dying written Hebrew language in Alexandria, Egypt into Koine Greek because they knew the language would soon be lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
I did not know about this, this is interesting. Regardless it doesn't include the New Testament since it is before Christ.
It's an important part of the Bible. This is why I also provided information on on early English translations. I also have a pre-1964 Jerusalem Bible that provides good insight to reading. The best thing anyone can do is use a lexicon to research the Greek. One must understand that it is the Greek that is oldest oldest and best source. The Neo-Hebrew that was invented in 900 AD is not the written ancient Hebrew of the Israelites. Even the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls) agree to the authenticity of the Septuagint and shows the errors of the Masoretic Text.
Thanks, I didn't know that! That is really cool! Here's some more info I found on the Septuagint page. It looks like there are some slight differences in the writing and there are 5 known ancient variants of Hebrew Bible texts. Overall though I did learn something and it is interesting there is an 8th century BC or earlier Hebrew Bible out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls
http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=356
Add Wycliffe and Tyndale (the most important ones) to the list above^^ and scratch all the nonsense about the King James homo bible and you're still wrong.
Start here -
http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0003_Antioch_and_Alexandria.html
Thanks I misspelled the Wycliffe Bible. The misspell was "Wyche's". And yes add the Tyndale Bible. That was chiefly a NT work, which was only part of the Bible he completed in 1525. Tyndale drew upon both the Greek and Latin, especially employing the work of the Textus Receptus. In 1534, a translation of the OT up to the end of the Chronicles was published, and the work was later incorporated into the Matthew's Bible.
History cannot be scratched as "nonsense". In "A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects" (I actually had to leave out a part of the title since long titles were really popular back then) a guy who calls himself Tom Tell-Troath gives one of many accounts about the King's predilection for handsome young men. Still, this doesn’t mean his relationships with his favorites weren't seen as strange from the man who came to be called Queen James.
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esmé to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.” —Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611
Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991) —Skip Church
King Jamesʼ favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham. —Ben Edward Akerly, The X-rated Bible
Jamesʼs sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.” —Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
“James, aged thirteen, was completely starstruck by these new arrivals. After being brought up by dour Presbyterians and a rough-hewn bunch of nobles, he suddenly appeared from the schoolroom to find a group of charming, well-traveled, well-educated and attractive men. He was fascinated by them, welcoming his release from the Reformist nobilityʼs stranglehold. The attraction of these personable and worldly courtiers was a breath of fresh air, and they quickly played on his sensibilities. These new ‘favorites’ were the key to free him from the shackles of the Kirk and his schoolroom. Within a month of Esméʼs arrival, James had agreed to leave Stirling and to take his place at Holyrood, where Esmé reorganized the Court and his household on the French model.
There was more to Jamesʼs relationship with these favorites than kicking against his religious upbringing. Their charisma provided a sensual stimulus for him that he was not to enjoy with his interfering and insensitive wife, Anne of Denmark, when they married in 1589. They provided the glamour that he lacked, and there can be little doubt that his homosexuality stemmed from his early attraction to the androgynous Esmé. Well experienced in Court circles in France, Esmé took advantage of the sexual overtures of this vulnerable adolescent, twenty-four years his junior. James would openly clasp him in his arms to kiss him, shocking the Reformist clergy, who saw that Esmé ‘went about to draw the King to carnal lust’, while James showered him with offices and presents. By March 1580, the English ambassador, Bowes, was telling Elizabeth that Esmé was ‘called to be one of the secret counsel, and carryeth the sway in court’. By September ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’.
—Esmé Stuart, 1st Duke Of Lennox
This is a partial run down of evidence of how well it was known.
Moses sinned in anger against God, are we to call into question the Mosaic Law because of it?
Paul killed Christians before he was converted, can we trust his words?
I have no idea if KJ was fag or not and I don't really even care. The Word of God is something that you can verify yourself, as I have. I carried the NIV for 30 years as a lost methodist. When my friend turned me on to the KJV, I was no longer lost. This is something you should know without doubt and it won't be found reading the lies of men.
King James being a sodomist has nothing to do with Moses. The Creator views each individual by their heart and intentions. What is required for forgiving of any sin? It requires complete repentance.
To not know history and not "care" is to be easily misled through 'Pharmakeia'. Blindness saves no one. Aloofness to evil is its acceptance. The irony of King James never accepting the Authorized Version tells us perhaps King James was not repentant. It is only called 'authorized' because it was authorized to be printed. Nothing more. It doesn't mean its a bad version. Every Version has its criticism. It is our duty to ferret them out and through our God-given cognition to research and discern the interpretation.
I'm glad for you that your friend turned you on to the KJV. I have a copy myself I often reference. With me, it's only the starting point though and I won't rely on it solely. Good tidings in your research.