Introduction
One subject that has come up many times is the issue of Bible history and
Bible versions. Who decided which books should be in the Bible? What is the
difference between the
NIV and King James? Which version is the best? Why
does the Catholic Bible have more books? This can be a very confusing issue
to some people.
My hope in this page is to provide a little bit of background on the Bible:
where it came from, and why we have the books we have. In addition, there is
a very brief introduction to textual criticism, and a run-down on
various English Bible translations and types. Somewhere in the middle, I
have my own personal preferences on Bible versions listed.
Canon
The Bible, also known as The Holy scriptures, is a type of canon. The word
“canon” comes from the Greek word kanon, which means a rod used to
measure. When refering to the Bible, canon refers to the list
of books considered authoritative as Scripture.
For the Jews living during the Old Testament times there was no need for a
canon — they had the prophets alive and in their presence. Likewise, for
the early church, they had Jesus Christ and the apostles. Once the prophets
and apostles were dead, however, it became necessary to gather their writings
and preserve them.
This process of preservation and establishment of canon served serveral
purposes. It sought to: define what was inspired, and what was not; prevent
a corruption of the inspired words of God; ensure the inspired words of God
not be lost; and preclude the possibility of additions to inspired works.
There is still ongoing debate among churches regarding the canon. For the
Old Testament, Protestant Christians from the Reformation onward, accept the
shorter canon (39 books) from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews now use the
same canon as the Protestant Old Testament, but the order and division of
some of the books is different, giving them a total of 24 books.
Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament
canon (46 books) from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Alexandrian
Canon. This adds Tobit, Judith, Greek additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon,
Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Greek additions to Daniel, Susanna, Bel
and the Dragon, and 1 and 2 Maccabees to the Protestant OT canon. The
Greek Orthodox church adds 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and
3 Maccabees for their canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds Jubilees,
1 Enoch, and Josippon’s History of the Jews.
For the New Testament, Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Greek Orthodox
Christians view the same 27 books as canonical. The Syrian church recognizes
only 22 books (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation). The
Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes 8 additional books (four sections from
Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement,
and Ethiopic Didascalia).
Development of the canon
The canon did not just happen overnight, neither for the Old Testament, nor
the New Testament. The canon is the result of development through time. The
canon of the Old Testament was mainly fixed (with a few books still in
dispute) by the about the year 400
B.C. The canon of the the New Testament
was mainly fixed at the council at Carthage in 387
A.D. I say “mainly”
fixed, because there are still differences between churches.
The formation of the Old Testament was spread over many centuries. The first
holy books of the Hebrews were Moses’ books of law, which were placed in the
Ark of the Covenent.[1] When Solomon built the temple,
he added books of history and prophecy from Joshua’s to David’s time, as well
as writings of his own.[2] About fifty years after the
temple was rebuilt, Ezra made a collection of the sacred writings, which now
included Jonah, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah,
Obadiah, and Habakkuk. [3] To this was added the books
of Nehemiah, Malachi, and Ezra. In addition, Nehemiah gathered the “Acts of
the Kings and the Prophets, and those of David,” when founding a library for
the second temple, c.432 B.C.[4]
The first significant canon of the Old Testament in the form we now have it,
was the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue, composed of Ezra, Nehemiah,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. However, there were still disputes.
By the first century BC, the Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine were known to
generally use the Palestinian canon. This consisted of 24 books divided in
three Sections: the Law (5 books of Moses or Pentateuch); the Prophets (4
former and 4 latter prophets) and the Writings (11 books). The Sadducees most
likely did not accept Daniel because it 2 supports resurrection of the body,
which they did not believe in. Others, like Samaritans, accepted only the
Pentateuch as Scripture. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote (c. 90 AD) that
Jews recognized 22 books. The Essenes (around the time of Jesus) did not
accept Esther. Greek speaking (Hellenistic) Jews used the Septuagint,
a translation put together around the third century B.C. by elders of Israel
at Alexandria, Egypt (see The Apocrypha below).
After the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD, the Jamniaa (Javneh)
council, led by Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided at to adopt the Palestinian Canon
as canon.
The Apocrypha
Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more
books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or
“deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach),
Judith, I and
II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional
chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books
are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically
important is 1st Maccabees.
These books appear in the Bible as used by the Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, and Armenian and Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox churches. There are
also a few other books (I & II Esdras, The Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of
Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Prayer of Manasseh) which are
frequently lumped in with the apocrypha.
The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the
Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and
Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament
in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have
settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian
church did not.
Justin Martyr (c 160) regarded the Septuagint as canon, as did Iranaeus and
Tertullian. Tertullian also considered the book of Enoch (not part of
Septuagint) inspired. Melito, bishop of Sardis (c 170) recognized the
Palestinian canon minus Esther. Origen’s (c 185-254) list of Old Testament
books comprises of the Palestinian canon plus the Letter of Jeremiah from the
Septuagint. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in 367 gave the same list as
Origen but included Baruch and omitted Esther. The list of Old Testament
books given at Council of Laodicea (c 363) follows that of Athanasius with
Esther. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem from 348 to 386 follows Origen’s list but
included Baruch while Gregory of Nazianzus (c 330 - 390) followed that of
Athanasius. Jerome (346 - 420) gave us the well known Latin Vulgate. He had
doubts about the Septuagint canonical status, but included the extra books in
his Latin translation and referred them as apocrypha.
Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) followed the Septuagint. In 382 Pope Damasus
approved the Septuagint at the Council of Rome. It was then declared at the
Church Council in Hippo in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council
of Carthage in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the
same list of Old Testament.
At the time of the protestant reformation, the reformers sought a return to
the original sources (ad fontes). They adopted the Palestine canon
for the Old Testament, pointing to several issues with the apocypha: they are
never quoted by Jesus or the apostles; the last inspired prophet closes by
saying no other messenger is to be expected until the second Elijah;[5] divine authority is not claimed by any of the writers, and
by some it is disowned[6]; and the books contradict other,
canonical, scriptures.[7]
Since the reformation, the exact role of the apocrypha in the Christian canon
has been disputed. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches see these books
as authoritative Scripture. The Jews, who also use the Palestine canon, do
not recognize them as inspired books, but regard them as having high
authority as a valuable history of their nation; though carefully
distinguished from canonical scripture, they are quoted in Talmudic writings.
Protestants have seen these books as suitable for edification, but not as
authoritative Scripture. The Church of England (Anglican / Episcopal)
recommends them “for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth
it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”
During the formative period of the New Testament canon, decisions had to be
made regarding what principle(s) marked New Testament writings as divine and
inspired. The general requirements became apostolic authorship, consistency,
and non-contradiction with the Old Testament.
|
Which Scripture was known to Jesus, His followers and the first Christians?
The answer is they knew both Palestinian Canon and Septuagint. Greek speaking
Jews also lived in Palestine and known as Hellenists (Acts 6:1). However all
New Testament writers mostly used Septuagint whenever they quoted from Old
Testament. It is not a matter of convenience (both used Greek), because at
few places they still quoted from Palestinian canon (translated into Greek).
As mentioned above, Septuagint has textual difference compared to Palestinian
canon. A good example is the famous prophecy about Jesus virgin birth in
Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Palestinian canon does not say
“virgin” but “young woman” while the Septuagint does say “virgin” (note that
both Hebrew and Greek have different words for virgin and young woman).
|
Some books considered sacred by the early church were eventually left out
of the New Testament canon. These include the Apocalypse of Peter and the
Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the
Didache.
By the early 4th century, twenty out of the twenty-seven books were
readily and universally accepted: the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline
epistles, and the first epistles of John and Peter. Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2
Peter, Jude, James, Revelation were disputed for a time: Hebrews bore no name
of its author and differed in style from the Pauline epistles; 2 Peter
differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves “servants,”
and not “apostles”; the writer of 2 and 3 John called himself an “elder” not
an “apostle”; and Jude recorded apocryphal stories. By the end of the 4th
century the 27-book New Testament canon was almost universally accepted. The
most notable addition in some manuscripts is the Epistle to the Laodiceans,
which was rejected by the Council of Florence (1439-43).
Different Translations
Until fairly recently (the last hundred years or so) the
King James,
or
Authorized version was the de facto English translation. In the
past hundred-or-so years, numerous English translations of the Bible have
been issued by various people and groups; each new translation seeks to
improve on previous translations in some way.
With all these competing translations, it can be difficult
to know which is the right one to use. My initial comment is, “don’t worry
about it too much.” Your main focus should be having a Bible and reading it.
If you are reading the Bible, even one of the mediocre translations, you are
moving in the right direction.
With a few exceptions, most of the English translations
listed below are pretty good Bibles. I cannot tell you which Bible is the
right one for you. Choosing the “wrong” translation will at most, annoy you
and cost you up to a hundred dollars. But I can offer some insight into the
differences between translations, which may help you in the decision-making
process.
All English Bibles are translations. The original texts
were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Despite the claims of some
people, Jesus did not speak King James-style English. The differences
in Bibles boils down to a difference in translation. English Bible
translations are classified by two factors: the principles of translation,
and source texts utilized.
Principles of translation
There are three main principles of
translation:
formal equivalence (word for word),
dynamic
equivalence (thought for thought), and
paraphrase.
When translators seek formal equivalence, the original language
is translated word for word, as closely as possible. All the words in the
source text are translated, and any words added for clarity are generally
italicized. This approach has the advantage of being very accurate and
true to the text with few interpretive assumptions, allowing the reader
full liberty in textual interpretation.
The disadvantage of formal equivalence is that idioms or
slang phrases can mislead or confuse the reader. These phrases, when
literally translated into another language, can take on new meanings.
Imagine how someone, who does not speak English, would interpret phrases
such as “bury the hatchet” or “piece of cake” or “under the weather.” The
same thing can occur with the Bible, which was written by a different culture,
in a different time.
When translators seek dynamic equivalence, the original language is
translated in a thought for thought method, in an attempt to express the
meaning of the original text. The primary criticism of dynamic equivalence
is that words which do not appear in the source text are added and words
deemed unimportant are omitted. In general, these added or omitted words are
never italicized or in any way distinguished from the words of the source
text. In addition, the grammatical forms of words and phrases are sometimes
changed (pronouns changed into nouns, nouns into verbs, two different terms
or phrases combined into one, and similar changes).
The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that idioms or
slang phrases are translated or expanded into equivalent modern phrases, and
grammatical corrections are made to phrase the text in an easy-to-understand
manner. This makes the text easier to read and understand.
Paraphrase translations are produced to make the text as easy to read and
understand as possible. A paraphrase translation takes a “big picture”
approach, trying to explain the general idea of a passage or story.
Source Texts
The discussion of source texts can be a
complicated, and often contentious one. There are no known original
manuscripts for any of the books in the Bible, and the ancient manuscripts
differ from each other to various degrees. This may raise a red flag for
some people, but allow me to put in perspective. The New Testament has more
ancient manuscript support than any other body of ancient literature. There
are over five thousand Greek and eight thousand Latin manuscripts and
fragments which date before the fifth century. In comparison, the
Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 ancient manuscripts that still
survive.
Three main bodies of text have developed: the Majority
Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Critical Text. Each of
these has been developed by people seeking to find what was originally
written. The methods of determining what was originally written varies from
group to group, however.
The Majority Text is so-named because it is developed
with the assumption that the original text is whatever appears in the
majority of the ancient manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus is the Greek Text compiled by
Erasmus in 1516. This was considered the classic text for the New Testament,
until the discovery of numerous older texts in the last hundred or so years.
It is the text that Tyndale’s English translation, the Bishop’s Bible, and in
turn, the King James version is based on.
The Critical Text has been developed by textual
critics, based on the idea that the text of the Bible should be approached
like any other ancient manuscript. For a long time, the Greek used in the
New Testament (Koine Greek) confused scholars somewhat, because the New
Testament was the only known document written in that particular Greek
dialect. However, the discoveries of numerous papyri in the last hundred
years have shown that the New Testament was written in the language of
everyday people: the same language used in writing wills, private letters,
receipts, shopping lists, etc.[8]
Instead of tradition, or a raw count of manuscripts, choices
in the Critical Text are made based on likelihood of authenticity, and
manuscript age. The main Critical Texts of today are the Greek New
Testament (4th Edition) published by the United Bible Societies, and
Novum Testamentum Graece (27th Edition) published by Nestle and Aland.
That is for you to decide,
and it is not a simple question. To quote from The Complete Guide to
Bible Versions,
“… for what? for reading? for studying? for memorizing? And best for whom?
for young people? for adults? for Protestants? for Catholics? for Jews?” My
responses are not intended to be complicated; rather, they reflect the
complexity of the true situation. Whereas for some language populations
there is only one translation of the Bible, English-speaking people have
hundreds of translations. Therefore, one cannot say there is one
single best translation that is the most accurate.
[9]
For serious study, I prefer a Bible which strives for formal equivalence,
and, as such, I use the New King James (
NKJV). It is a fairly literal
translation, and though it is based on the
Textus Receptus, it
includes notes for every textual difference between it, the Majority Text and
the Critical Text.
For day-to-day reading, I really enjoy The New Living
Translation (NLT). No other English translation of the Bible has the same
level of approachability and immediacy. I wouldn’t develop a hard-core
doctrinal stand based on the wording of the NLT, but it does a superb job of
rendering the text in modern English, and provides footnotes for verses with
significant textual variance.
Listing of English Translations
The following graphic was borrowed from the
Zondervan Bibles website.
I thought it provided a nice visual spread of which translations are more
literal, vs. paraphrased. They have a vested interest in the
NIV, hence
its presence in the center of the graphic.
(1901) Formal equivalence,
long regarded as the most literal translation of the Bible, which makes the
ASV very popular for careful Bible study, but not for ease of reading.
(1964) Formal equivilence, Critial
Text. The Amplified Bible seeks to bring out nuances of the original
languages. The text is expanded with sets of brackets and parenthesis to
bring out the hidden meanings and concepts of Greek and Hebrew words.
Revised in 1987.
(2000) Formal
equivilence, Majority Text. Extrememly literal translation produced by
Gary Zeolla, includes extensive notes and aids. One of only two current
versions based on the Majority Greek Text. Currently New Testament only.
See http://www.dtl.org/alt/.
Another name for the King James
Version.
(1995) Dynamic
Equivilence, Critical Text. Written at an elementary-school reading level in
simple English.
(1960) Extreme dynamic equivalence,
to the point of absurdity. Translated by Clarence Jordan. Replaced items
and places of ancient culture with items of modern ones. Palestine became
transformed into the modern American South; Jerusalem turned into Atlanta;
Matthew the tax collector worked for the Internal Revenue Service; and Jesus
became a roughshod inhabitant of Valdosta, Georgia.
(1890) First published in 1890 by John
Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher associated with the early years of
the Plymouth Brethren. Darby also published translations of the Bible in French
and German.
(1609) Catholic translation based on
Jerome’s Vulgate. The standard English translation for Catholics for several
hundred years. Revised in 1752 by Bishop Challoner.
(1995) Dynamic equivilence, designed to be an
accurate, readable translation, using modern English language idioms to
convey the meaning of the original texts. Produced by a denominationally
diverse, 75-member team of translators, linguists, English experts, and
independent biblical-language scholars.
(1974) Dynamic equivalence, written
at a 6th-grade reading level in contemporary English. Revised in 1993.
Also known as Today’s English Version.
(1966) Dynamic equivalence, translated
from the French La Sainte Bible. The French version was praised as
being “one of the greatest achievements of renascent Catholic biblical
scholarship” because of the abundance of footnotes and introductions. The
English version, included the notes and added text. Revised and re-released as
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) in 1966
(1611) Formal equivalence,
Textus Receptus. In 1604, King James I of England decreed a new translation
of the Bible into English be started, “to deliver God’s book unto God’s
people in a tongue which they can understand.” With the hard work of 54
translators, it was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first
translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The
Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for
English-speaking Protestants. While technically easy to read because of
shorter words and smaller vocabulary, the 17th-century English makes it
difficult for many people to understand.
(1995) 3rd Edition;
Formal equivalence, based on 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus. Translation by Jay
P. Green, it grew out of his work on the Interlinear Greek-Hebrew Bible. The
Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible is listed in parallel, with the original
words, Strong’s numbers and the English meanings beneath; all words added by
the translator are in italic type.
(1971) Paraphrase of the Bible produced by
Kenneth Taylor, it is written in contemporary English, based on the ASV. It
was written in an attempt ot help his children better understand the Bible.
(199?) Paraphrase produced by Eugene Peterson,
designed to be an easy-to-read, modern language Bible. Uses the tone of
modern American English, while maintaining the meaning (and idioms) of the
original languages.
(1970) Formal equivilence, Textus
Recepticus. Catholic translation published under the the direction of Pope
Pius XII, developed by the Catholic Bible Association of America. Written at
a 6th-grade reading level, strives to be a clear translation written in basic
American English.
(1971) Formal
equivalence, sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary
English, while preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV. Special
attention given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a
rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew
texts. Updated in 1995.
(1970) Dynamic equivalence,
translated into contemporary British English; the first British Bible
translated from the original languages since the KJV.
(1996) Formal equivalence,
Critical Text. A completely new translation of the Bible “from the best
currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” Includes over 60,000
text-critical, lexical, and exegetical notes. As of 1999, the New Testament
was complete.
(1973) Dynamic equivalence,
Critical Text: produced by 115 translators, attempt at “an accurate
translation, suitable for public and private reading, teaching,
preaching,memorizing, and liturgical use.” Approximately 7th-grade
reading level.
(198?) Dynamic
equivalence, Critical Text, based on NIV, with 40 additional translators,
stylists, and simplifiers. At a 3rd-grade reading level, it uses simple,
short words and sentences for a version that is easy to read and understand.
According to Zondervan, is was “designed to help young children and new
readers understand the Bible for themselves and create an easy stepping-stone
from a children’s Bible to an adult Bible.”
(1982) Formal equivalence, Textus
Receptus. Written at a 7th-grade reading level in contemporary English, but
retains the poetic style of the original King James. It was produced as a
revision of the KJV, intended to make it easier to read.
(1996) Dynamic equivalence,
Critical Text. 90 Bible scholars and English stylists worked seven years on
an update of The Living Bible. It was
completed in 1996. Based on original sources, the goal of the NLT is to
produce the closest natural equivilent, using the vocabulary and language
structures of modern English. The publisher states it is, “a general-purpose
translation that is accurate, easy to read, and excellent for study.”
[10]
(1989) Formal
equivalence, written in contemporary English, seen as a revision to the RSV
with gender-inclusive language.
Translation used by Jehovah’s
Witnesses. The NWT is purposely mistranslated to support Jehovah’s Witness
doctrine.
(1989) Dynamic equivalence, a
revision of the New English Bible (NEB).
(1946) Formal equivalence, one
of the most widely read English translations, it is a revision of the AV
(Authorized Version of 1611, otherwise known as the King James Version) and the
ASV (American Standard Version of 1901), utilizing the best texts available at
the time.
(1881) Formal equivalence, Textus
Receptus, update to the King James version.
See Good News Bible.
(1898) Formal Equivalence,
translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young’s Analytical Concordance.
Extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word
usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.
Listing of Bible Types
Interlinear Bibles (there are many types)
typically show at least one English translation alongside the original
Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text, with notes on word usage, and translations
of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words. Some interlinear Bibles include
the Interlinear KJV - NIV Parallel New Testament and JP Green’s
Interlinear Hebrew - Greek - English Bible.
Published by Tyndale in 1987, revised in 1993. Developed by Youth for
Christ to help apply the Bible to everyday life, includes personality
profiles of Biblical characters. Strong emphasis on application. Has much
explanatory and historical information in its introductions, charts, maps.
Available in KJV, LB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV.
Developed by John MacArthur, a result of 30 years of study and teaching.
Includes 20,000 study notes, book introductions and outlines, outline of
Systematic Theology, 200-page topical index, charts, calendars, and maps.
Available in NKJV.
350 word studies, 32 pages of full-color charts. Available in NKJV.
Extensive textual notes including comparative interpretations. Includes
study notes, concordance, introductions to each book, and maps. NIV only.
Includes concordance, maps, charts, various essays on specific words and
concepts, text-critical notes, extensive “Topical Index to the Bible”, and
fantastic book introductions and outlines. Strives for doctrinal
objectivity. Available in KJV, NKJV, NASB. This is my primary study bible.
Dispensational, but not as emphatic as Scofield. Developed by former Dallas
Theological Seminary professor Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie. First published
in 1986, with an “Expanded Edition” released in 1995. Contains outlines, book
introductions, extensive notes, 22-page “Synopsis of Bible Doctrine” section.
Definately a theological study Bible, as opposed to a “practical living” one.
Doctrinally oriented. Available in KJV, NASB, NIV.
Strong dispensational, fundamentalist outlook. First published in 1909,
revised in 1917 for KJV. 1967 update (called the New Scofield Study Bible)
for other versions. Excellent cross-reference system, notes in center column
and as footnotes. Includes maps, “Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names.”
Doctrinally oriented. Available in KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV.
Pentecostal / Charismatic bias, has special sections on applying Bible to
everyday life. Needs-oriented. Has book introductions and textual notes.
Special “Kingdom Dynamics” sections discuss topics such as evangelism, seed
faith, prosperity, spiritual gifts, and healing. Contains some charismatic
theology and more extreme “word-of-faith” elements. Available in KJV and
NKJV.
Released in 1908 by Frank Charles Thompson, includes references in margins to
link Scriptures on 4000+ subjects. Includes archeological notes and topical
studies. Unfortunately, the word chains are based on English words, not on
the original Greek and Hebrew, and are therefore very limited in usefulness
for serious study. Attempts to be doctrinally objective. 5th Improved
Edition released in 1988. Available in KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV.
Other Sites
The following web sites offer additional information on Bible versions,
translations, etc. I do not endorse any particular view expressed on
these sites. These links are provided only as a convenience.
Online Bible — Free Bible
software. Download and use numerous Bible translations, commentaries,
dictionaries.
Zondervan Bibles
Darkness to Light -
Bible Version Controversy
Jay Forrest’s Bible Search
Engine — Over 20 versions, English, Greek, Hebrew, French, German,
Spanish.
JP Green’s Literal
Translation (LITV) in an on-line, browsable format.
Paul Bessel’s Bible Versions
Page.
Footnotes
[1]: Deuteronomy 31:9,26; 2 Kings 22:8; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25.
[2]: 2 Kings 22:8; Isaiah 29:18, 34:16; Daniel 9:2.
[3]: Nehemiah 8:2,3,14.
[4]: 2 Maccabees 2:13.
[5]: Malachi 4:4-6.
[6]: 2 Maccabees 2:23; 15:38.
[7]: Baruch 1:2 compared with Jeremiah 43:6,7.
[8]: Basics of Biblical Greek, William D. Mounce,
1993, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.
[9]: The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Philip
W. Comfort, Ph.D. c1996. Wheaton: Living Books - Tyndale House.
[10]: Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997, c1996.
Wheaton: Tyndale House.
The Christian Horror Blog