Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is old testament of KJV same as Jewish | OT general | Madhu | 3720 | ||
Is the old testament in the KJV bible exactly same as the Jewish books used now ? Was it same during the life of Jesus on earth ? | ||||||
2 | Is old testament of KJV same as Jewish | OT general | Hank | 3721 | ||
The original King James Version included a group of writings called the Apocrypha, a group of fifteen books which were never accepted in the Hebrew canon and not accepted by most Prostestants. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include them however. The Hebrew Old Testament canon is similiar to the Protestant canon, but the order of the books is different and some books are combined as well. There are English renderings of the Old Testament written from a Jewish perspective. You ask "was it the same during the life of Jesus on earth?" I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is, but I assume it to be referring to the books of the Old Testament that were considered Scripture in Jesus' time. If that is your question, the answer is no, the Jews of that day were not in agreement on what constituted Scripture and what did not. The religious sects of the time, the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes were not in unanimity about which of the Hebrew writings were the inspired word of God. To complicate things still further, the Hellenists (Jews who had adopted the Greek culture and language) had their own "Bible" called the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew writings. No official canon was established for either the Old or New Testaments until some years after Jesus' ascension. The King James Version, although we hear the joke about its being the one Jesus and His disciples read, came along much later, in 1611. Hank. | ||||||
3 | How was books in KJV compiled? | OT general | Madhu | 3738 | ||
Who decided and selected the books we read in the protestant bibles ? What was the basis to confirm that this is the Word of God when there was a confusion about old testament books even during the life of Jesus on earth ? How can we be assured that no forgery took place ? | ||||||
4 | How was books in KJV compiled? | OT general | 3751 | |||
Old Testament Books - The Gospels prove that Jesus Himself quoted from almost all of our current Old Testament books in his preaching and teaching, demonstrating that there was already an informal consensus among the Jews of His day concerning which books were considered sacred Scripture. The Old Testament canon was officially ratified by the Pharisees who met in the council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. New Testament - The canon of New Testament writings grew over time though usage in the early Christian churches. General consensus regarding the 27 books of the New Testament was ratified by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 A.D. Major considerations when these early Christians were struggling to determine which writings were inspired by God included: a) were the writings clear in presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ? b) were the writings apostolic, or by someone close to an apostle? Several books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) were disputed for a time, but over time proved themselves through their usefulness and divine power as being inspired by God. The Holy Spirit - Not only do we as Christians believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures that we now read in the Bible, but we also trust that God guided and preserved these sacred writings down through the centuries for us. Early Jewish scribes were very meticulous concerning the transmission and copying of Scripture; they counted sentences, words, and even the characters of each book to make such that no mistakes were made. Concerning the New Testament, we have ancient copies going back to the third and even second century A.D. that help us when we encounter some of the very few copyist errors that inevitably creeped into transmission of the sacred texts. These ancient texts allow us to determine with great accuracy the original texts of the Scriptures. Therefore, the modern reader can with great confidence take a current copy of the Bible in hand and firmly believe that it contains the true word of God, from cover to cover. The Apocrypha - The Apocrypha, extra writings in the Holy Scriptures, appear in several copies Catholic Bibles. These changes and additions to Holy Scripture were made rather late in the history of the Holy Scriptures, approved by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1540 (?). However, at that same council the first Protestants, including Martin Luther, were condemned by the Roman Catholic church... and were not present. That explains why Roman Catholic Bibles today have some extra books... that most Protestant Bibles do not contain. And while these books make interesting and sometimes helpful reading, we do not believe them to be a part of sacred Scripture. The King James Bible - The King James Bible, commissioned in 1611 by King James of England, is drawn from very reliable Hebrew texts... but the Greek texts (New Testament) are relatively late, from the 11th and 14th centuries (as I recall). Since that time more accurate and earlier translations of the New Testament have been found that do not contain some of the few scribal additions that are found in the King James Version (1 John 6:7, for example). However, we should note that NONE of these tiny additions alter the doctrine of the Bible in the slightest. While the KJV is a very poetic and beautiful Bible to use, it is NOT the most accurate. More modern translations, especially the NASB and the NIV, tend to be more faithful to original Hebrew and Greek texts that we now have available. -I welcome any comments or questions from my brothers and sisters in the faith - Brady Blasdel ChristOur@aol.com |
||||||
5 | How was books in KJV compiled? | OT general | retxar | 3752 | ||
I know I’m in the minority here as this is a NASB forum, but I prefer the NJKV as a modern, literal translation, over the NASB, because I believe it is based on more accurate text. The NKJV is based on the Antioch manuscripts, where the NASB is based on the Alexandia manuscripts that you mentioned. I base my belief on Acts 6:7, 12:24, 13:49, and 19:20 which describes the Word of God as growing, spreading, and multipling. This seems to describe the Antioch manuscripts. The Alexandria manuscripts pretty much just stayed on the shelf and did not grow, spread, or multiply. The Alexandia manuscripts as you stated correctly, are the oldest. However they are highly suspect, as they were isolated, away from the Church and under the control of one group of people. Age alone does not make them the most accurate. The additions as you mentioned, could have just as easily been deletions of the earlier, rather than additions of the later. I am not dogmatic about this and my pastor, who is my closest brother on Earth, would probably agree with you. Jesus Lives! |
||||||