Wasn't there a bible translated straight from the Greek/Aramaic?

[tjdee]

I seem to remember reading somewhere at DU that there was a bible translation coming out that was to be a doozy because it was translated straight from the original languages.

But hasn't that already been done?

Am I getting things mixed up in my head?

Does anyone know of any recent translations?

[Silverhair]

1. That has been done many times.

Even the King James Version was translated directly from the best available Greek & Hebrew texts of it's day. Today, there are better original language texts available than there were in 1611. All translations since then have been from the original languages.

There are no differences of doctrine among them. There are differences of precise wording, but they don't make a difference in the meaning.

I use the New International Version.

[rateyes]

3. Actually, the King James is a translation...

of a translation. The original was translated into Latin. And, the translators of the King James translated from the Latin. And, the original King James reads MUCH different than that King James most people use today--although it's English, it's much more difficult to understand than the Elizabethton English we know as the King James.

Almost all other versions come directly from the closest we have to the originals. There are NO original autographs in existence. The new version, I believe the OP is talking about is a remake of the New International Version which actually uses gender inclusive language---where "humanity" is meant, it will read "humanity" instead of "man" or "mankind." Fundies hate it, because they want to keep males in charge of the world. Women do not belong in positions of power in their view. Stupid view, and unbiblical, but their view nevertheless.

[Silverhair]

6. You are wrong.

The translators had access to a total of 12 greek/Hebrew texts. None of them were a complete Bible, so 12 were needed to have all of the parts of the Bible covered. That is known as the "Textus Receptus" for "Recieved Text".

Yes, the first KJV would be very difficult for a modern reader because of the 1611 spellings. For example V was used for U, f for s, and so on. I have a copy, republished about 20 years ago, of the first edition KJV, complete with the introductry letter from the translators.

You may find "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER" here:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/1611pref.html

"Fundies" as DUers use the term, do not hate the NIV. However, there are some extremists, even among fundamentalists, who are KJV only.

[rateyes]

8. OK, I stand corrected with a caveat...

And, forgive me if I get it somewhat wrong, it's been a long time since I read this stuff...but, if I remember, the Textus Receptus itself had several versions from different "translators" and was an imperfect Greek paralelled with Latin of the New Testament...

So, it seems to me that the KJV is still a translation of many translations---didn't Wycliffe, or somebody before him have an English version before the KJV based entirely on the Latin Vulgate? Perhaps that's the English translation I was thinking of instead of the KJV.

But, to say that the KJV was based entirely on the original languages would be definitely wrong. IMHO, of all the English translations, the KJV would be the LEAST reliable in its accuracy to the original language.

[Silverhair]

10. Certainly we have better manuscripts than they did 400 years ago.

Or, more precisely, we have them widely available now. They were around then, but one here and one there and known about only by the locals.

It is worth noting that the differences are all very minor and no point of doctrine is based on any of those differences.

[kevinmc]

2. You can use the...

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It has every word in the Bible and it's Hewbrew and Greek translation. Plus the root-word.

[enid602]

4. Bible

Remember, the Bible was compiled of several scriptures (chosen among a much greater number of biblical scriptures) by the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in 325AD at the Council of Nicea. The other scriptures were thought lost. Many were found more recently in caves in Israel, and in the desert in North Africa during WWII. It is only in the past couple of years, however that technological breakthroughs have enabled scholars to read and translate these old, battered scrolls. I suspect that the Bible will change drastically as a result.

[PsychoDad]

5. Aramaic bibles- There are a few.

As far as I know, most translations are based upon the Peshitta documents, such as

"The Younan Bible"
"The Lamsa Bible"
"The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts"
"The Apostles New Covenant", the American Edition
"The Disciples New Testament", "the Galilean" edition

Online resources
http://www.peshitta.org/ - an Online Aramaic NT.

Other resources
http://www.aramaicbible.org/
http://www.aramaicbiblecenter.com/
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/ABT.htm
http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic.html

Hope this helps to answer some of your questions, although what I find most fun is when the answers bring more questions to research :)

Have at! and Peace

[madrchsod]

7. remember there is also the coptic church

unfortunately the western nations completely dismiss this religion in favor of the greek-romanized versions of the teachings of christ.
the old testament is still a work in progress do to the discovery of ancient sites and texts.
latest -christ was born in Galilee instead of Judea because there is no evidence that Bethlehem existed at that time...

[manic expression]

14. Is that true?

the thing about Bethlehem? Just wondering.

[Sgent]

9. For Hebrew Testament

translation, the Jewish Publication Society recently (last 5 years) redid their translation from scratch. For an online version, look at www.chabad.com. Obviously this won't cover New Testament stuff, but its regarded as one of the better translations into English of the HT stuff.

[MemphisTiger]

11. The newest version that is touted to be the closest

translation is the English Standard Version

also the New American Standard Version is said to be very close.

I personally use the NIV or NKJV

[grumpy old fart]

12. And always recall that there are NO originals....

everything available is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy......the earliest extant copies are copies mostly made centuries after the "actual" events of the NT. There is also always the probability that as these hand written copies were made, slight changes were made in the text to conform to the emerging orthodoxy.

Remember also that there was nothing actually written by any of the original disciples, Jesus, the Marys, or any of the other principals of the gospel stories....

[tjdee]

13. I thought John was, or James....

And I'm a Christian for pete's sake, LOL...can't remember. I always thought John was John. And James was Jesus' bro, no?

Someone needs to read up on their own book. :dunce:

[grumpy old fart]

15. Well there is some controversy about this.....

John may very well have started the Gospel attributed to him, some decades after the gospel events, but it seems to have certainly been written in stages and completed long after his death.

As for James, most consider the new testament epistle to be pseudepigraphical, meaning someone else wrote it and used the name to lend weight to the teachings contained therein. This was apparently a common practice in the ancient world. Several of the New Testament books are considered pseudepigraphical.

[Silverhair]

16. Hence the science of textual criticism.

By comparing manuscripts in different areas from different manuscript families we are able to deduce with great likelihood what the original did say.