If the Bible is the literal word of God why are there so many versions?

The bible is different for everyone and EVERY SECT says their "version is correct".

Not only are there versions, but they are edited versions. Random verses come and go at the will of the Church.

The original Bible was the true word of God, but the people changed it. Pagans had it, drunkards had it.

Only the Qur'an remains the same as it was earlier. There are no "versions" or "editions".

Well you can learn new Testament Age Greek I suppose.

Otherwise get one or more good translations. They can't translate word for word because Greek sentence structure is different, idioms used are different and so on, also words have slightly different meanings with the same word. Also not all words map exactly to English words. The translators do their best. The meaning is pretty much the same I think.

Get a Catholic recommended bible and a Protestant recommended one if you like - theres not much difference really.

At the start of each it will normally give a reason for that particular version in the introduction.

Eg New International Version (1973) - they wanted a new version in more recent English, as versions such as Revised Standard sound a bit victorian in language use.

You can read up about the laborious processes they underwent to try and avoid bias and error.

Words just put across meaning. Whether translators are translating Plato into English, Origin of the Species into Arabic, or the Bible into English they do a professional job. Translations of the Bible are more serious efforts with a large team of translators etc to do the job well. We Europeans and Americans are really good at it. (We, not the Middle Easterners, worked out hieroglyphs, cuneiform, linear B - we are hot technically.)

for many Christians, the Bible isn't the literal word of God. For Muslims, the Qu'ran is the literal word of God. The Bible replaced into written by way of distinctive human beings over a protracted quantity of time. as a procedures because of the fact the KJV in basic terms human beings, previously the KJV of the Bible replaced into written, there have been various poorly achieved manuscripts that had no longer something to do with what replaced into in Scripture. there have been some good ones. no longer all have been based off the comparable texts the two. The Textus Receptus, that's a determination of Greek Texts, replaced into printed in 1516. This replaced into what Martin Luther used to translate the Bible into German and what the King James translators used to translate the Bible into English. From that, the King James version is an marvelous translation. yet.... issues replace over the years. And the tendancy in direction of Scripture Scholarship on the instant centers plenty around attempting to artwork with the older manuscripts (the older may well be closer to the unique) OR working for the duration of the scripts and seeing translating people who have the generic public of similarities (the those issues seem in line - the greater perfect they in all probability have been to the unique). Few communities join utilising the Textus Receptus, however the King James in basic terms flow does. So...that's why they say the KJV is the main precise. it rather is because of the fact it merely properly may well be based off the source of manuscripts that have been used. Matt

All they do is contribute to understanding from a different "angle", so to speak.

Sometimes, I find a passage is unclear to me, so I pull up a different version of the Bible and sometimes it takes a few until I finally "get it".

You are worried over something which really doesn't matter - having all of these different versions by which to choose. Bottom line is that God's Word is a Living thing, and the Holy Spirit (which is one of God's persons) uses whatever versions are out there to convey the message that needs to be heard.

The problem lies in pulling a specific verse out, and treating it like it can stand alone. Many verses can not stand by themselves, and the reader needs to read ahead and/or after the verse to fully understand the context by which it was originally meant to convey. This is where some people get in trouble - they pull out a verse or a group, that can mislead what the true message was written for. And this is where sometimes some odd religious sects can pop up. This is where a minister or faith can manipulate a congregation or individual into believing some ideology that God did not intend His Word to say.

There also, therein, lies the arguement that this is why each of us individually MUST read the Bible on our own, naturally, in it's original context, in it's order. This way, we have the tools we need to NOT be deceived or mislead by some leader or individual who has his/her own agenda interjected into some Biblical reading or verse.

So, sometimes, I begin with the New King James version, and something seems a little hazy, so I look at multiple versions until - aw! I found the one that helps - even if it did come from the version - The Message !

See the link below, and play with it and see if it helps to clarify what I have said.

031407 2:55

thats a very popular, and good question.

I'll start from the beginning: pre Old King James. The bible that we read are translated from ancient manuscripts. these manuscripts are dated to different points in history. some are copies of copies. There are about 26,000 of them - more than any other piece of ancient literature. Scholars translated the language from the manuscripts and from there we get our bible. There are slight changes from manuscript to manuscript but the errors involve more along the lines of typos than doctrinal differences.

As for the translations that we have now. I have or have read parts many of the translations that you mention above. Contrary to popular believe, they do say the same thing. For instance, i made read the NKJ version and my pastor uses the American Standard. When he reads out loud things dont match up, but only because the phrasing or something was changed for easier reading, not because they are really different. They still give the same exact msg and tell the same exact story in the same exact order. They just say it differently.

There are a handful of lines that have been left out of certain translations but there is no big coverup here. Its only because there exists some debate as to whether certain (like a handful) of lines were added in later manuscripts that didnt exist in the earliest ones. SOme translations include these lines and some dont. The exclusion or inclusion of the lines, again, does not change the meaning of the text, but might have been added for emphasis like a thousand yrs ago.

Its like two ppl listening to someone speak spanish and

translating it- both translators will not translate exactly the same, but the substance will be the same. Again, most of these translations exist merely to make the bible read easier, unlike the Old King James.

The process of translating Scripture is the among the most painstaking processes in any scholarly field.

There are actually over 500 versions of the Bible in English, but many of them are not in use any more.

Often, the same scholars work on multiple translations, and some of them are not even Christians.

About 98% of the greek texts are perfectly identical. Of the 2% that is different, it is most often scribal errors, such as repeating a word twice, which is simple enough, one just removes the extra occurrence of the word. The rest are things like what is seen in Matthew 6 during the Lord's Prayer. Some greek texts have the additive "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." In most translations now, the ones that contain these phrases place brackets around them, so that the reader can know that not all texts have this written.

This is ALWAYS a situation where an older text does not have something a younger text. There are over 5,000 greek manuscripts, and only a couple omit these types of passages. The explanation is actually quite simple. When men would copy by hand scriptural documents, they would most often copying them for their own use. When they read a passage, they might be inspired, and write a note about it for their own reference. Later, another scribe would be copying the document, and see the note. Uncertain whether it was a note or whether it was actual Scripture, they would err on the side of putting it in, not wanting to leave out any passages of God's Word.

It's important at this point to note that never do any of these inclusions ever change any Christian doctrine in any passages of the entire Bible. Some translations that are more conservative choose to not place them in at all, others now wish for us to take note of what some of the ancient scribes thought as they copied God's Word down.

Also, in most translations of Scripture, you will find words that are in italics. These words are in italics because they do not directly appear in the original text, however, it is because of a difference in grammatical structure between the two languages, and thus adding these words is necessary for the sentence to make sense. So these words are not changing the meaning, and different scholars make different choices in vocabulary to the same end.

Different words are used in different translations for three major reasons.

1. Sometimes a group of scholars will collectively decide one word sounds better than another. For instance. I could say that "I walked to the store," or I could say "I traversed to the store." Both mean the same thing, but traversed sounds prettier. Sometimes they might choose the opposite, with the thinking that to say "walked to the store" is more simple, and easier for people of different vocabularies to understand. This also accounts for English vs. American translations, because while we have a very similar language, we use different dialect slightly.

2. Sometimes a group will try to choose the most literal word possible. This can give different opinions rise, as there are many words that greek or hebrew have, which have no english equivalent. For instance. The word "agape" and the word "phileo" in Scripture both translate to english as "love". However, in greek society, these two words had very different meanings. Phileo meant to love someone as a brother, agape meant that you unconditionally would love someone regardless of any circumstance. So sometimes different words are chosen for difference of opinion over precision.

3. There are two camps of translation of any given text. The first is literal translation. This means that the scholars look at the text, and translate each word individually, and then put them together in english sentence structure. The other method is to translate a context, where a group translates a thought being used in the text rather than each word individually. In the end, they are about equal. Personally I prefer the literal method, but the versions that are based off of each phrase are easier to understand for those who are not familiar with Scripture already.

I hope that helps you. Many people think that translation is a joke with Scripture, but there is no book that has ever been as carefully scrutinized in translation as the Bible, and there's unlikely ever to be such.

Part of the reason has to do with something called "translation" There is no such thing as a literal word for word translation, because it would make no sense, so translators have to first figure out what the original text was trying to say, and then figure out the best way to word that in English.

There is also the fact that there were many informal copies made of the New Testament books in the early days of the church (over 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies). Some of these copies have slight variations in wording or grammar or spelling, so scholars try to reconstruct the original wording of the original document by comparing old copies of the New Testament to each other. Some times this results in minor variations in wording from version to version, depending on which group of scholars assembled the originals, and how.

In spite of all of this, there seem to be no variation in MEANING between the different versions, so I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

------------------------------------------------

Why So Many Bible Translations?

By Dr. Dale A. Robbins

...It’s inadvisable to allow the issue of translations to become a distraction. For the average layman, most of the differences between the translations are relatively insignificant. All the versions we have listed have a high degree of harmony and convey the same general message of God’s Word, but will use some of their own distinctive phrases and words. The following is a summary of the most popular versions, along with a brief evaluation:

The King James Version (KJV) — Translated in 1611 by 47 scholars using the Byzantine family of manuscripts, Textus Receptus. This remains as a good version of the Bible. It has been the most reliable translation for over three centuries, but its Elizabethan style Old English is difficult for modern readers, especially youth. This is still a good translation for those who can deal with the language.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) — Translated in 1971 by 58 scholars of the Lockman Foundation, from Kittle’s Biblia Hebraica and Nestle’s Greek New Testament 23rd ed., which include the Alexandrian Family codices. Though academic in tone, it is said to be the most exact English translation available. A very good version.

The Living Bible (TLB) — A paraphrased rendition of the King James Version by Kenneth Taylor in 1971. This is not a genuine translation, but is a type of phrase-by-phrase commentary that was originally intended to help the author’s own children understand the scriptures. It is useful for inspiration and commentary, but for serious Bible study it should only be used in conjunction with a legitimate translation.

The New International Version (NIV) — Over 100 translators completed this work in 1978 which was composed from Kittle’s, Nestle’s and United Bible Society’s texts, which include the Alexandrian Family codices. This is considered an “open” style translation. It is a good, easy to read version.

The New King James Version (NKJV) — 130 translators, commissioned by Thomas Nelson Publishers, produced this version from the Byzantine family (Textus Receptus) in 1982. This is a revision of the King James version, updated to modern English with minor translation corrections and retention of traditional phraseology. This is a very good version.

The Bible is the literal word of God. The reason that there are so many versions (translations) of the bible is because peeple have difficulty understanding the King James Version. Also, when people do indepth bible study, people like to compare the different versions of the bible.

The stories in the Old Testament Bible was told orally over campfires for hundreds of years before being written down. It was written in many languages. Stories told orally get changed. Languages change words. Even the New Testament was not written by one person when the event happened. I suggest you take a Bible course on how the Bible was put together. There is little in the Bible we can take literally except for a few words of Christ that all of the writers agree on. The Bible is the inspired word of God written by people.

This can be confusing. The literal word of God was spoken to men who wrote it down. You can see the personalities of those men as you read the biblical text. It is nearly impossible to write something down that someone said and to say it in the exact manner and in the exact voice as the speaker intended.

Humans wrote down the word of God. As in the biblical texts, the old testament was written in Hebrew and the new testament texts were written in Greek. Later, it was written in Latin. Good luck trying to read any of those versions without having to write them into English (or your favorite language).

Generally, most of the translations you mentioned above are attempting to be true to the original text. (The Living Bible wasn't meant to be literal. It was meant to be conversational). We don't have a verbal recording or all the original (or near the original) texts to translate so we do the best we can.

We, when looking at the source texts must diligently try to interpret the texts in a way that they can be understood in today's english. Sometimes, that causes a verse or a part of the bible to be misunderstood. This is an unfortunate reality. However and overall, the context of the Bible is still understood and it tells us about the heart of God and the heart of human kind.

Two good versions to use are the NIV and the NSRV. I use the latter. I like the NSRV because it is more literal but the NIV is written in much easier english.

To use an example of why Bibles need to be translated into everyday english I would suggest you read English writings from over 100 years ago, such as Shakespere (sp). The English is so confusing it is hard to understand what is being said. So, we have to disect the english in order to get its meaning.

Lastly, it is always good to have a few versions on hand so that you are not easily mislead by someone. This allows you to verify what they say by the literal translations you read.

King James had about 80-90 educated scholars translate the bible from Greek and Hebrew into English the best the could . It's pretty close to the original .Most other ones emit or change words from the original text , and a lot don't want to hear about repentance and damnation in hell forever.