Why are there many versions of the Bible (e.g.: King James Version has more than one version)? Is the Bible being corrected?

Kind regards,
Trevor Maistry

No the bible is not being corrected. The thing is in some denominations there are books that are not considered to be part of the bible but are included.

As well as the bible is always being translated to today's language. The people who translate are always trying to make the bible more understood. The way to do that is to have easier readable versions out.

It does not change the meaning but may be worded differently for better understanding.

There are many versions basically for the same reason there are manay languages; you too may decide you can write a version that would help the local people in your neighbourhood to understand the messgae of God.

They all say basically the same thing, just explained differently.

You need to add , as long as they were translated from the original text.
Some are not or are merely revised from a different version. And these can get off base really fast. A full translation on the other hand will simply use better words or terms to get the original meaning across to the reader

Tried to give you a greenie but must spread the love first. One last thought... not that anyone asks or care... KING JAMES VERSION ROCKS!I like it the best but have been known to quote and read other versions. And that is all I have to say about that.

There are several reasons. Some have been mentioned, such as the need to have the Bible in the language of our day so we can understand it. Another is because we're constantly learning new things about the original languages of the Bible, things that help us understand words and phrases that we could only guess at before. An example: the KJV in 1 Sam 13:21 says "they had a file for the mattocks." The word for "file" in Hebrew is PIM. Until about the mid-20th century we had no idea what that word meant, so "file" is somebody's best guess. Then some archaeologists found a scale weight (the kind you put on one side of a balance scale to judge the weight of something) with that word on it. That makes it clear that PIM is a unit of weight, so the verse says "the charge was a PIM to sharpen their mattocks..."

I grew up on the King James and did virtually all my memorization in it. I still have a strong affection for it. But it's not in our language any more. There are those who think the language structure and the "thee/thou" language is somehow more "reverent" or "higher," but the truth is, at the time the KJV was made, that was the language of the common people, not the more "cultured" or "refined." And the KJV was not an original translation; it was a revision of two previous versions, so it actually falls into the category of revision that 450donn mentioned.

You need to change "original text" to something like "earliest extant text".

There is not a single book of the Bible for which an original text exists.

Very true! I also grew up on King James and any verse that comes to mind is that version. My dad still prays to the Lord with the thee and the thou's. I keep trying to tell him it isn't more reverent to the Lord. I told him thee and thou was hip and happening back in that day but he won't listen. To each his own... :)

No, but we have accurate methodology for sifting through what we do have in order to recreate the original text. I think you mean "original autograph," because that refers to the actual document from the hand of the writer. "Original text" simply means a faithful copy or representation of what that writer wrote. And we have plenty of that.

People have had a lot of ideas about how to undertake translations, some want to translate from word to word without reference to the structure while others want to to capture the thoughts. The original language of the New Testament was the spoken language of the day and the meaning of words changes over time just as it does in English. The english of a thousand years ago would hardly be understood today and it is necessary to keep updating the translation so it is well understood. The Old Testament was written over fifteen hundred years and also translated into Greek so there are many possible variants in the wording from translation to translation.
Overall if you compare translations they are close to each other excepting on the paraphases

First of course we have what we call the bible, there was no "one" book, The Council of the Church meet and decided what books would or would ot be.

After that, while the King James is a good version, it can be harder to understand since many words have changed during the years. So easier to read and understand versions have been made

Autograph, then. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem, however, with your last two sentences. How could you define a later copy of what the writer wrote as 'faithful", if by faithful, you mean exact? And if the manuscipt we have is 100 or 200 years after the events described? Isn't it reasonable to assume that errors or redactions occurred as the books were transcribed over the years?

I don't think this makes a lot of difference in understanding the main thrust of the books of the Bible, and its essential message, but it does make a difference when people try to get it right word-for-word in order to support this or that dogma held by one church or another. I'm not against scholarship, but I am against agenda-driven scholarship (an oxymoron).

Read the first part of my paragraph. It answers your question.

And why would you assume that textual criticism (the science of comparing the manuscripts we have to determine the original text) is "agenda-driven scholarship"? The goal of textual criticism is to 1) sort out what is the original text and what is later alteration, and 2) to reconstruct the history of the transmission of the text to figure out why those alterations happened. Some changes were deliberate, some were scribal errors, some we're not sure. But with over 5,000 manuscripts to compare, plus ancient translations (versions) and quotes by early church fathers, we can reconstruct the original text with over 99% accuracy. For a good introduction to the subject see Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, or just about anything by Bruce Metzger.

This column was in today's Newsday. I thought it pertinent to this question.

I also thought it was more a judaic point of view then a christian one. But it's a view point I tend to subscribe to.


P.S. If you can't get to the column from the link (Newsday access is supposed to be limited to subscribers), let me know and I'll post the text.

As you say, the article is truncated if you're not registered. I'd like to see the full article. Rabbi Gellman pairs with a Catholic priest on TV, and they both do a nice job discussing religious/spiritual matters.

Ok here is the entire text:

God Squad: The text in our Bibles isn't God's dictation

Newsday April 20, 2010 By RABBI MARC GELLMAN [email protected]
God Squad
Rabbi Marc Gellman

Several months ago, you wrote, "I know the Bible is filled with miracles like the splitting of the Red Sea. . . . but I choose to see most of these miracles as symbolic, or perhaps the report of overly enthusiastic observers of what actually happened. . . . The Exodus, for example, could have been the result of people on foot getting away from soldiers in heavy chariots when they ran through a marshy area. I prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one every time, but this does not mean that real miracles are impossible."Well, I prefer to take Scripture at face value. Could not a God with the wisdom, knowledge and power to create us and the sea also have parted the sea? If we start relegating to fable any portion of the biblical record as merely symbolic, I believe we're on dangerous ground - for who can tell what is truth and what is merely symbolism?

- P. via e-mail

The basic problem with miracles is that they replace belief in God with belief in miracles.

If our faith requires us to believe in talking snakes, then the first time we realize snakes can't talk, we're forced to conclude God cannot exist. This is both false and foolish. It replaces monotheism, the belief in one God, with "bibleism," the belief that the Bible we have in our homes is the exact copy of God's words.

In addition to the strain bibleism puts on our reason, there's the problem of which Bible text is actually the word of God. The English text was written down 2,000 years after the oldest Hebrew text, whose oldest surviving copy, the Allepo Codex, was itself not written down until 1,000 years after the original text, which has disappeared. Since then, there have been many translations of the Bible, all of which conflict in major and minor points. So even if the text of the Bible is perfect, the text we have in the pews is not.

Another problem with bibleism is that everyone who reads the Bible does exactly what you say they shouldn't do - "pick and choose" which parts they consider to be the word of God. Everyone of decent moral fiber ignores the commandments to kill homosexuals and witches. The slaughter of the Amalekites and their children and flocks was a repulsive genocidal mistake that the God I worship would never have commanded. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find Sunday schools actually teaching kids that Balaam's donkey could speak fluent Hebrew! So the question is not whether we should pick, since we all do it. The question is what we pick.

The atheists' conclusion is that the Bible is corrupt, but I believe they're also wrong. The same Bible that teaches about split seas and talking snakes also teaches that we should love our neighbors; not murder, steal or commit adultery; care for the widow and orphan; do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. These are moral virtues found first in the Bible, and I believe they're revelations directly from God to our needy souls.

The Bible, in my view, is the word of God the same way one can see sun in a far meadow that's partially obscured by leaves. Some verses block your view like the leaves because they're man-made. Some verses are so luminous and incantatory that we can't help but see God's light shining through the text.

Like us for whom it was given, the Bible is a complicated and layered document. This is also why, above all other books, you need a teacher to help you read it. To view it as simple dictation from God is simply false to the Bible's subtle and evanescent genius.

Faith can indeed bring us miraculous gifts that are beyond the reach of reason but are crucial to a hopeful and virtuous life. Faith can bring us hope in life after death for the soul. Faith can give us courage to pursue justice despite overwhelming injustice because of the belief that our right to freedom is a gift from God. Faith can give us courage to defend the sanctity of all life because people are made in the image of God. These beliefs and others are central to my faith, and they are true miracles. I need these miracles for my faith more than I need the special effects of a split Red Sea.

Thanks Scott, the rabbi makes eminent good sense. And "Bibleism" is a good word.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. If "miracles" are just spontaneous self-generating events, well, sure. But those of us who believe the miraculous events of the Bible acknowledge that God is the one who performs those events and is the source of them.

The whole "bibleism" thing is a red herring, because if we have any beliefs at all, they have to be based on something. I don't know of anybody who worships the Bible the way this guy suggests; they look to it as their authority for belief and practice. I see nothing wrong with that. Yes, people tend to pick, but that doesn't negate the authority of the book if in fact it does have its source in divine inspiration.

Baffled as usual,

You apparently missed the key point. You can't have it both ways. Either the entire Bible IS the word of God or its not. If it is and you look to it as your authority then you have to accept ALL of it as your authority, you can't just pick because then its not God's word you are basing belief and practice but your own.

It's hardly that cut-and-dried; there are questions of ritual law, things that are meant to apply only to the Jerusalem cult, things that are culturally based, symbolism, the list goes on and on. Yes, there are those who pick because they don't like something - the rabbi himself said that HIS God wouldn't wipe out the Amalekites, for example - but there are a lot of us who are sincerely trying to sort out exactly what was meant in this or that place and how (or if) it applies to us today. That's not picking and choosing, it's trying to come at it on its own terms.