.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

B i b l e  T r a n s l a t i o n s

Which translation is accurate?

The.Bible.has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature, including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar and Tacitus. The reliability of scripture is confirmed through the eyewitness accounts in the Old Testament of authors like Moses.

Old Testament veracity is measured by the reliability of the New Testament. Emmanuel quotes the Old Testament in its threefold parts."the law, the prophets and the psalms".as the word of God:.Luke 24:44

The New Testament likewise has the same kind of eyewitness verification. Nevertheless, many versions appeared until one was eventually settled upon. And there are now many translations, some good. Translators had a massive job to do and they did it the best they could.

An excerpt regarding the authenticity of the New Testament: 
Firstly, the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus authored a global history entitled the.Bibliotheke, which he published around B.C.E. 30. This was a monumental work, some 30 years in the making comprising 40 books which record world events from the dawn of time right up to his own era. Modern historians consider this text to be of great importance and rely upon it as an accurate guide to significant portions of early history.

It is virtually impossible to find any historian willing to suggest that the events which Diodorus details are somehow inaccurate or did not occur essentially as he describes them. Nevertheless, the.Bibliotheke.covers many incidents from the remotest corners of the known world. His history consisted of 40 books, of which 15 and 1120 survive, the others 'disappearing'. His books were divided into three parts. Information accumulated was from sources he tracked to incidents occurring a thousand years before.

"The Bibliotheke, invaluable where no other continuous historical source has survived, remedies to some extent the loss of the works of earlier authors, from which it was compiled. Diodorus does not always quote his authorities, but in the books that have survived, his most important sources for Greek history were certainly Ephorus (for B.C.E. 480340) and Hieronymus of Cardia (for B.C.E. 323302); for Roman history he was heavily dependent on Polybius (to 146 A.D.) and Posidonius."....information from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Secondly, the historian Titus Livius, B.C.E. 59 to 17 A.D., composed one of the great classics of Roman literature entitled, History of Rome. Spanning the entire annals.(a chronological record of the events of successive years; a descriptive account or record; a history).of the city from it's founding in B.C.E. 753, right up until the time of publication, this work remains the most read, most admired and primary source for Roman history. Livius produced 142 books covering many events from the far reaches of the empire, based on previous writings, up to 750 years in the distant past. Once again we discover that historians do not call into question the validity of these historical accounts despite the degree of separation between the writer and the events. 

Thirdly, Mestrius Plutarchus, 45 A.D. to 125 A.D., wrote a number of biographies of outstanding world leaders. This collection called Plutarch's Parallel Lives was produced over a 25 year period and is regarded as a historical text of great value. It focused on comparing various Greek and Roman statesman and remains one of our very best sources of information on most of the people profiled. Plutarch's work forms the basis of several of William Shakespeare's plays and as a result, enjoys overwhelming assent to its reliability. Despite the esteem, Plutarchus chronicles many events throughout both empires, from other sources, 500 years after the deeds.

Now let us compare the New Testament with these other great works of antiquity. Since the New Testament authors were adults at the time of the events they recorded and since they wrote before passing on, we know that their epistles can be no more than about 50 years removed. Many are less. While 50 years may sound like a lot, it is virtually insignificant, historically speaking. It would only be problematic in terms of recalling mundane events, but not in the case of the highly memorable which tend to remain emblazoned in the mind as though they had occurred yesterday. 

By comparison, while all three of these classics were written from secondary sources, the New Testament is direct. While all three wrote at great geographical distance, the New Testament was 'on the scene'. While all three wrote generations and generations after the fact, the New Testament was contemporary. In addition, Diodorus wrote 1000 years afterwards, Livius 750 years removed, Plutarchus 500 years later, the New Testament 50 years at most. This means the New Testament has 20 times the ability of Diodorus to tell the truth with accuracy, 15 times that of Livius and 10 times more than Plutarchus. While historians wholeheartedly believe in the first three, the New Testament has on average a 15 times greater ability toward accuracy. To summarize, by applying the exact same tests to all four books from this same era, we can readily see that the New Testament stands in a class by itself.

Regarding the accuracy of the Old Testament
.....the.Masoretic Text.('Masora' means 'written down'; the things of the Creator written down so they could accurately be relayed to an oncoming generation) available as the.JPS Translation.(Jewish Publication Society).
   The.Masoretic Text.comes from the body of Judaic tradition relating to correct textual reading of the Hebrew scriptures.(the Old Testament). The.Masoretic Text.contains critical notes made on manuscripts of the Hebrew scriptures existing before the tenth century.
   Considered to be the true text of the Old Testament; not the Dead Sea Scrolls, even though the Scrolls are alleged to be more than a thousand years older.

Some sincere, dedicated to the Creator Jews were meticulous in guarding the Creator's Old Testament word, so much so that even the slightest change, such as a comma to make the text appear clearer, was footnoted and so we have the highly accurate translation of the Old Testament, produced by the Jewish Publication Society, called the.Jewish Translation. We have much to be thankful to the Jews for:.Romans 3:1,2; John 4:22

Dead Sea Scrolls:."In 1947 Jum'a, a shepherd of the Ta'amirehDead Sea Scrolls tribe of the nomadic Bedouins, discovered ancient scrolls, 2 made of copper of unparalled quality and about a thousand others of papyrus, etc., of which out of the total only about one hundred have been released for public information.(why? Hmmm!).rolled up in leather and cloth in a cave to the northwest of the Dead Sea in the Qumrân Valley. A remarkable archaeological find, the scrolls formed the first part of a collection of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that were discovered in quick succession after Jum'a's original find. These ancient texts, which include the Book of Isaiah in its entirety and fragments from all other books of the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther, turned out to be more than one thousand years older than any other Hebrew texts previously discovered." ...comprised with Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Even though many versions in New Testament times appeared, one can still decipher the higher consciousness themes that are the heart and core of why the one we call Emmanuel the Christ came as mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments. The spirit of Christ in one's heart will guide one as he grows in knowledge.

The Dead Sea material was not written by Jews who were given the charge by the Creator to protect them. The Dead Sea Scroll writers were not of the Jewish tribe of Levi. They were Essenes, a Jewish cult of ascetics, somewhat resembling the Pharisees, whose teachings were rife with heresies. The Essenes originated about B.C.E. 100 and disappeared from history after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Similarly, the Septuagint manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among themselves and disagree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text in many places. Both cannot be correct.

As the Hebrew Masoretic text.(Old Testament), most carefully guarded by the Jews, is the inerrant, infallible Word of the Creator, verified by the hidden codes within the Bible, the.Septuagint however, should be seen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain of the LXX which we have extant today.(c. 350). The LXX.(70, because 72 persons back then produced it; 72 rounded off to seventy).is another name for the Septuagint.

In antiquity the Hebrew Bible.(Old Testament).was translated into Greek.(and so, the Septuagint), Syriac, Jewish Aramic.(the Targums).and Latin.Vulgate.

The Septuagint translation was commissioned by Ptolemy II, B.C.E. 282-246, King of Egypt, son of Ptolemy I. For this purpose an accurate Hebrew manuscript was sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria, where the work to translate the Old Testament was undertaken by seventy two elders from allegedly.the twelve tribes.

The man Baruch, a man of high character and a friend to and secretary of Jeremiah, has had many spurious books written about him. One must be careful when writing about lives of others.

In addition to the books on Baruch, many other books have been regarded.spurious, including the.Gospel According to the Hebrews,.Acts of John,.Book of Abraham,.Book of Enoch,.Book of Jubilees,.Book of Noah.and the.Books of Adam, all names incorporating at least one true word from the.Bible.in them, but were not at all Bible books themselves.

In addition, there are many other books, these ones mentioned in the Bible, but not included in it.

In addition, the books of.Judith, the.Wisdom of Solomon,.Tobit, Sirach (also known as.Ecclesiasticus {not to be confused with Ecclesiastes} and the two books of.Maccabees.are outside of the canonized.Bible.

Judith.and.Tobit.are best described as historical fiction. Wisdom.and.Sirach.are similar to the canonized books of.Proverbs,.Job.and.Ecclesiastes

The books of.Maccabees.are historical works and therefor may be somewhat accurate. They were written and appear as read, to be in the tradition of the.Bible.books of.Samuel, Kings.and Chronicles. Also generally included with the Apocrypha are the two books of.Esdras, meant to provide additional information on the.Bible's.Book of Esther.

The.Song of the Three Young Men,.Susanna,.Bel and the Dragon, and the.Prayer of Manasseh.are other Apocryphal books written by men long after the Books of the Holy Bible were regarded as the true work of the Creator.

King James Bible:.preferred, The Textus Receptus by Erasmus is 'the' Biblical Greek text of the New Testament and the King James version must then be viewed as the reasonably.(*).faithful English rendering of that text; reasonable that is, after the risk of so much tampering. That's why one must read it with the sincerity to deeply understand true meanings of each of the verses and the verse meanings in context. The tampering however, stops when one considers the hidden mathematical codes within the Bible; codes not able to be deciphered without an incredible amount of time and effort before we had the computer.

Your spirit, your soul will guide you into all truth.(ok, so what is truth?), because it is connected with the Spirit, the Soul of all:.1John 5:6 ".....it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.".John 5:39; 14:26; 16:13; Ephesians 1:17.

This Authorized King James Version, the Old Testament part of the.Holy Bible, closely follows the accurate.Masoretic Text, which has been found to contain codes.(also true of the New Testament).inserted by the Creator to verify the authenticity of the.Bible.

Many prefer the King James Version as it is the predominant.Bible of this age. Therefore it is doubly important that it be presented as intelligently and as intelligibly as possible. Publishers through the generations have tacitly revised it from time to time, so that the obsolete words and spellings might not be confusing, but they made some errors.

This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of the version in 1611 and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form. It has cleared the text of the 1611 version of innumerable antique spellings, such as Hierusalem, Marie, assoone, foorth, shalbe, fet, creeple, fift, sixt, ioy, middes, charet and the like. Comparatively few verses in the 1611 version have escaped such improvements and modernizations and most verses contain several such changes. The word 'Jew' shows up in the latter versions, not being in the originals as such. And as for the word Emmanuel.... For more see 'Languages of the Old Testament' in the.International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, free from and will integrate with, the also free.Online Bible.

It has also corrected the numerous misprints of the version, so that it is now one of the most accurately printed books in the world. The one original misprint to survive is the famous "strain (straine) at the gnat".

Many new versions.(Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New International Version).omit much more than the old English thee's, thou's and antique spellings, albeit sincerely.

Efforts were made starting with the Revised Version and it's counterpart the American Standard Version to make fresh translations using, the original text for the Hebrew and the Greek and using other translations like the KJV, to give us reliable translations in the English language. These translations had the advantage of more and better manuscripts than were available to the KJV translators in 1611. Using them side by side with the KJV will add to understanding.
   The 2011 King James version, available free with the Online Bible, also free, makes reading easier when compared with the earlier King James versions.

Apocrypha:.means hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in the LXX and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, but which have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word.
   This has never been accepted as scriptures for the following reasons:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.