What bible do you use, and why?

I’ve been doing a study on biblical translations going back to the first English Bible, which we commonly know as the King James Version. In 1611 A.D. King James I of England authorized this translation through a select committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. Some had ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America.

Textual criticism is an academic discipline which scholars studied existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Prior to 1455 (the advent of the printing press) all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes. Original manuscripts were copied then burned. Today, there are virtually no copies of the earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

What was found in the latter half of the 19th century were two ancient manuscripts one at the foot of Mt. Sinai now known as Manuscript Aleph (Codex Sinaticus) and later one found in the library of the Vatican, now known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Many scholars are perplexed that Manuscript Codex Vaticanus was found in the Vatican. Moreover Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect who held heretical views similar to today’s Jehovah Witnesses.

Dr. B.F. Westcott and Dr. F.J.A. Hort representatives of a branch of the Church of England and friends of the Roman Catholic Church championed these two manuscripts. These two fundamentalists edited the Aleph and B manuscripts into one Greek text of the New Testament. In the last century it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland, Metzger and others and now is referred to as the critical or eclectic text. Today virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible has its roots in this critical text. Dr. Frank Logsdon the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible has since renounced any connection to this fact. Dr. Logsdon now claims that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely 100% correct.

While I personally use more than one translation of the Bible. The King James Version itself has a list of 500 archaic an obsolete words and phrases that were changed to help the average reader to more readily understand the KJV. So is this hypocritical, and is the KJV the closest to the real thing?

Print Friendly

Leave a Reply (Choose Facebook or Standard)

 

Please enable us to use MORE time to reach MORE PEOPLE ... Donate NOW.

close
Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube Icon