Hello.

I have always wondered, maybe you have also, If the "Bible is the true book from God, and inspired by him, (which I personally believe it is) are there so many different versions or translations? If the Bible is from God, why so many differences. If we all claim to have the correct Bible translation and understanding and there was only one true inspired writtings, then whyy are there so many different beliefs

After all if I was to write a letter with instructions for you to follow, and it is copied millions of times over in different languages, how can I be sure my instructions are conveyed correctly?

Peace,
Hope12

Because I think the actual language most of the oldest texts was written in isn't a currently spoken or at least a common language.

So any are subject to translation. And if you spoke a second language well... you would understand that exact literal translations are frequently impossible with modern languages... much less ancient ones..

That's really the main point of that question. Greek and Hebrew don't just 'translate' into English. And it's not like one translation teaches one things and another teaches another thing. The same doctrine is there. A good example of this is the word "love". One word in English... MANY in Hebrew or Greek. If you believe, as you say you do, that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God... then rest assured in that. I have a bible with a comparison of the NIV and King James version side by side. It really opens up more understanding to see the different readings next to each other. You might find a translation that has different wording than another... but if you find one that teaches different doctrine... that's a whole different story.

The Bible was written in the languages of the people of the time. We translators do the best we can, but we're always open to learning new things about the languages we're dealing with. That's why translations are updated, revised, new ones made, and all the rest. We can be reasonably sure that we have the text of the Bible in the original languages pretty much as it came from the hands of the writers, and we're constantly discovering more about those languages, which helps make our translations more precise and easier to understand. I don't know of too many groups that claim to have "the correct Bible translation"; most use one translation or another but acknowledge that there are other equally useful ones out there. Anybody who claims theirs is the only correct one, or even the most accurate, is selling something. Be suspicious.

This may sound colossally obvious but sometimes I think it is worth saying anyway.

Hope12, one of the things that I have come to see over the years of reading the bible and studying it is that the bible has its own "language" if you will. What I mean is that there are themes in the bible that are explored over and over again. So even though through translation certain ideas may be harder to come to an understanding of, the fact is that if you are familiar enough with the biblical story, a translation variation from one bible to another is not enough to insubstantiate the meaning of the entire text.

We have to spend time reading the bible with understanding. I think some of the fear concerning whether the bible we have is accurate or not stems from a lack of knowledge of it. We are much more apt to feel intimidated by it if we are not intimate with it.

Take the book of Proverbs for example. If you read it through once, you'll see themes explored repetitively. Even though how a theme is explored through specific content may be different, you'll see a theme nonetheless. That is perhaps the best antidote for detecting variances in different translations and may serve to give you more confidence that what we have today is incredibly reliable, albeit imperfect translation-wise.

Hauntinghelper,

This is so true because in my study of the Greek lanuage and their sentence structure is different but if translated correctly the meaning of the sentence does not change. The individual tranlator would be the only one then that could change the original meaning of the sentence. Interesting, and something to really think about when reading any version of the bible. I guess that man could even deceive people by not translating God's Word eactly as it should be. I like your comment on comparing different versions. I Would imagine that is why (1 John 4:1) Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.
Peace,
Hope 12

Thnk you for your insight.

Peace,
Hope12

dwashbur,

Hi.. Being a Bible translator maybe you can explain, why do some versions still use words such as thou, thus,thouist and the like? We do not speak this way in modern time. So the population of mankind must rely on the honesty and integrity of the tranlators? Being imperfect, they can make mistakes either accidentally or they c an chane the meaning of the wrttings to please what they believe the inturpetation is? I guess that is why Huntingheler sugests comparing different versions. Thaks ffor your input, I value your reply as a translatwere.
Peace,
Hope12

And who is paying the translators ? Sorry but if a very liberal church group is having the bible translated "properly" they will be expecting their employees to translate the bible in the form and manner that matches what they teach. Not right but real life, same as with science research, researches often try and make their results meet the needs of who is hiring them, if they don't, they will not keep hiring them to research.

After that, remember in many teachings, the "old english" with the thee and thou for a lot of people are considered much prettier and more PROPER and sets bible language to a higher standard.

If you wish to take it to extreme, do you do a bible in Text talk ( what we don't allow on this site) or street slang.

Some of what I see is the bigger issue, is the loss of knowledge or education on what some things talked about in the bible is. The MILL STONE, how many 10th graders know what it really is, and how it really works.
When it talks about harvesting the wheat, how many people think of a combine not a man with a sling.

It is often the lack of teaching ( and our chuches are to blame partially) as to the habits and customs of the church during the times.

Even things like weddings, and the customs ( i.e. like waiting for the bride groom) have lost their real meanings due to poor education.

Hope12,
Please use the reply function instead of the comment function, as it makes it much easier to interact with your posts.

Dwasher,
Thanks for the suggestion.

Hello Chuck,

I agree that was the soul purpose of my question. The church-es who hire the translator must keep their boss happy or they won't have a job! This however can be damaging to those reading their translation of the Holy writtings. Maybe it would be better to hire a translator who does not know what a piticular church teaches.
The translator can still add what they personally believe. I would imagine that is why the scrpture a 1 John 4: 1 states:

Quote:

---

Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

---

I personally compare each version I read and meditate on the writing so as to think about what quality of God do I see and does it back up the Theme of the Bible, God's Kingdom under Christ Jesus. Then and only then will I personallly use that version.
Thank Yo=u for your reply.

Peace
Hope12

Not only that... but because you can't actually do a literal translation... any translator is going to have to for lack of a better phrase " Put it in other words" and even lacking any pressure for an outside source. There are a lot of things that 10 different translators could translate 10 different ways. Now they should all still essentially mean the same thing... only with different words. But THAT is all dependent on the skill of the translator in both languages, to understand what is being said and not just the words in the original as well as the language its being translated to.

Most languages have nuances that go beyond the literal meaning of the words chosen. And it's that which can be easily lost in the translation process.

Like a rumor that goes from person to person and changes every time... multiple translations (as in from one language to another... and from that one into yet another, etc) will suffer from the same thing.

And as the OP has suggested... when this happens over thousands of years... there was plenty of opportunity for that to occur. And how much HAS it changed?

I'm no authority on theology. Won't pretend to be either. But I do speak more than one language well enough to understand the difficulties of getting translations exactly right, and getting original intents through the process. And how easy it is for things to get lost in translation.

And when you do get beyond the face of it... this is an incredibly deep subject and concept as I suspect the OP was hinting at.

It has been suggested to me to read "Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church" which I hope to buy and begin reading this Memorial Day weekend. My understanding is that the Catholic bible was the "correct" bible until the protestant reformation, when it was manipulated to fit the personal beliefs of preachers who chose to go against 1500 years of tradition and approval by Christians. But more importantly, I think the answer to your question about which is "correct" is like asking which way of playing baseball (American v. National League) is "correct." There is no conclusive answer besides to say that in the beginning... pitchers were required to bat.

There is no real large difference in a Catholic Bible and the Protestant bible ( except for the addition books taken out)


The main issue, no matter if it is a King James Bible, or a NJ Bible, or NIV or one of the dozens of other versions, the real issue is to read it, since for most people, the version makes little difference as much as reading and learning it. For the 1 or 2 percent of the population that will set around and argue theology the version means a lot,
But most people merely use the version most recommended by their denominations

A significant point of clarification: They were not "Addition" books. They were originals, accepted for 1500 years. All protestant bibles are abridged, and edited versions of the "original." But I wholeheartedly agree that I'd prefer people to read and understand a bible, rather than not read any at all.

Another significant difference: The removal of Maccabees 2 (amongst others) was done by Luther because it contradicted his personal beliefs. He disagreed with the concept of praying for the dead, because he disagreed with the concept of Purgatory... a concept that is supported by multiple New Testament books. So why didn't he throw out Matthew, or Corinthians? This is significant because the OP asked about "correct" version... which means the "True" version. I am not an expert or apologist, which is why I am reading to learn more but I am certain that abridged versions result in abridged truths.