Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-30-2008, 12:42 PM
Cody1611's Avatar
Cody1611 Cody1611 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 177
Default English the 7th Bible Language?

I was wondering if English was the seventh language to be translated into the Bible and if so, what is the list of languages from first to seventh.

God Bless
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 05-30-2008, 02:34 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody1611 View Post
I was wondering if English was the seventh language to be translated into the Bible and if so, what is the list of languages from first to seventh.
I very much doubt anybody knows this for sure. I wouldn't base any conclusion on whether or not English was the seventh language to have the Bible translated into.

The KJV is, however, a "seventh translation" of the Bible in English. The prior translations leading up to the KJV were given in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible" that the translators went by after they were commissioned to do their work.

1. Tyndale
2. Matthew
3. Coverdale
4. Great Bible
5. Geneva
6. Bishops

...7. Authorized Version

I'd ignore other so-called "7th lists" leading up the AV -- they don't all agree and fudge a few things to make it right, whereas the KJV translation rules clearly and openly said which previous English translations the KJV "derived" from. While there were other English translations, they were not part of the "purification process" at least according to the committee rules adopted for the AV translation.
  #3  
Old 05-30-2008, 08:55 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

The "seven purifications" doctrine (read Psalm 12) does match the list of English translations. Also, I have shown how there are seven major editions of the King James Bible itself.
  #4  
Old 06-01-2008, 10:30 PM
pneuby pneuby is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Default

I can accept a certain logic in the AV assertion that a perfect God, who values his word, and said He would preserve it, could certainly do so.

What I struggle with is this. . .

IF those (individual-chosen) words are SO important, and you assert that they most certainly are...

Right down to that 'jot and tittle', and you assert that they are...

Then, why did believers have to wait SO LONG?

Why would God make us wait 15 centuries with mere portions of NT Greek and Aramaic translations..
Later compiled {I presume} into complete Greek ones...
Then translated into Latin ones{which divurged one from another}...
Then into several imperfect English forms...
Then the 'PERFECT' English one...
Which THEN needed some re-tweeking...

SEVEN TIMES over?!?

Does Will, or anyone else have an article on this one?
  #5  
Old 06-01-2008, 11:27 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Why would God wait so long to, say, convert the Jews... in fact, promising that at the last moment all Israel would be saved, why not manifest that salvation now? In fact, why let Satan and darkness yet abide upon Earth as it is today, when God could have ended those things long ago? The answer is simply this: "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" (1 Pet. 5:6). "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:6). "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." (Hab. 2:3).

To have a "final form" of the presentation of the Word means going from the inspiration, through the scattering, all the way to the harvest time, which is when the process has been complete, and the furnace of Earth has done its work.

Also, no one should deny that the Word of God existed or was perfect in the past, but there are statements of faith (i.e. showing what would yet come to pass) in the Scripture. "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26). "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister" (Col. 1:23).

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:9). (While not everyone is going to be saved, everyone has a chance, which explains why the future antichrist would be "Christ-like", and this would not be so unless all the population of the world had become very familiar with the Christian Gospel. The present conjecture that the future final Antichrist is merely some sort of New Age dictator is incorrect.)
  #6  
Old 06-02-2008, 04:44 PM
PB1789's Avatar
PB1789 PB1789 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent View Post
I very much doubt anybody knows this for sure. I wouldn't base any conclusion on whether or not English was the seventh language to have the Bible translated into.

The KJV is, however, a "seventh translation" of the Bible in English. The prior translations leading up to the KJV were given in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible" that the translators went by after they were commissioned to do their work.

1. Tyndale
2. Matthew
3. Coverdale
4. Great Bible
5. Geneva
6. Bishops

...7. Authorized Version

I'd ignore other so-called "7th lists" leading up the AV -- they don't all agree and fudge a few things to make it right, whereas the KJV translation rules clearly and openly said which previous English translations the KJV "derived" from. While there were other English translations, they were not part of the "purification process" at least according to the committee rules adopted for the AV translation.
Good Post Diligent! The list you posted reminded me of two english translations that were NOT mentioned---and for good reason. The Douay-Rheims version and the Wycliffe. Both of those came from the Latin Vulgate as their "roots" and it is amazing to read them and compare the N.I.V. done centuries later---but still missing (left out/chopped off) certain verses.... This is long before Tischendorf brought back his "found" text from a monastery in the Sinai.

May I add that Wycliffe was a good man that wanted to get the Written Word of God out to the common people. He translated from the Latin because that is what he had. He was so hated that 50 years after he was dead...the demons working for the Pope in Rome dug up his body and burned his bones, then scattered them in a river-- !

BTW---If someone wants to compare some english translations you can try Still Waters Revival Books in Canada and get a parallel with 6 translations in columns next to each other. Mine is in a storage locker right now, but I think they have Tyndale/Wycliffe/Douay-Rheims/A.V./ and two others.
  #7  
Old 09-02-2008, 06:21 PM
rbratt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuby View Post
I can accept a certain logic in the AV assertion that a perfect God, who values his word, and said He would preserve it, could certainly do so.

What I struggle with is this. . .

IF those (individual-chosen) words are SO important, and you assert that they most certainly are...

Right down to that 'jot and tittle', and you assert that they are...

Then, why did believers have to wait SO LONG?

Why would God make us wait 15 centuries with mere portions of NT Greek and Aramaic translations..
Later compiled {I presume} into complete Greek ones...
Then translated into Latin ones{which divurged one from another}...
Then into several imperfect English forms...
Then the 'PERFECT' English one...
Which THEN needed some re-tweeking...

SEVEN TIMES over?!?

Does Will, or anyone else have an article on this one?

"they were not part of the "purification process" at least according to the committee rules adopted for the AV translation. "

A man made committee decided (almost 1600 years after the fact) what to put into the Bible. My question is this: why didn't Jesus or the apostles create the Bible? They never put it all together, and they had all the letters and old scriptures to teach from too. ?? To spread the Word of God over the world and none of them thought to collect Jesus's teachings in a volume? Seems odd to me. Which is why I search for answers and stumpled on this site.

Very good reading and I have learned a bit.
  #8  
Old 07-03-2009, 10:44 PM
Cody1611's Avatar
Cody1611 Cody1611 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
The "seven purifications" doctrine (read Psalm 12) does match the list of English translations. Also, I have shown how there are seven major editions of the King James Bible itself.
Hey Brother, can you link me to the thread where you talk about the 7 major editions of the King James Bible?
  #9  
Old 07-03-2009, 11:23 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody1611 View Post
Hey Brother, can you link me to the thread where you talk about the 7 major editions of the King James Bible?
I guess I have talked about it in various places, but these two booklets show the issue in some depth:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/THE_FI...AMES_BIBLE.pdf
http://www.bibleprotector.com/God's_...ames_Bible.pdf
  #10  
Old 07-04-2009, 02:42 PM
PaulB's Avatar
PaulB PaulB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Northwest of England
Posts: 158
Default Hi Pnevby

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuby View Post

What I struggle with is this. . .

IF those (individual-chosen) words are SO important, and you assert that they most certainly are...

Right down to that 'jot and tittle', and you assert that they are...

Then, why did believers have to wait SO LONG?

Why would God make us wait 15 centuries with mere portions of NT Greek and Aramaic translations..
Later compiled {I presume} into complete Greek ones...
Then translated into Latin ones{which divurged one from another}...
Then into several imperfect English forms...
Then the 'PERFECT' English one...
Which THEN needed some re-tweeking...

SEVEN TIMES over?!?

Does Will, or anyone else have an article on this one?

Good question - I have attempted to touch on this issue in one or two of my posts, but I'm not sure whether they will answer all that you are asking.

If the KJB position is dismissed then the question gets more concerning - Why did we have to wait 21 Centuries and still not have a complete Bible?
I think that accepting the KJB position is much more satisfactory than any other case that hs been presented.
Only the KJB position confirms the promises that are written in the text of Scripture such as; "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mt.24.35

Also - Hi Bibleprotector - I couldn't have put it better myself!

God bless

PaulB
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com