C h r i s t i a n  K e y s
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. The New Testament likewise has the same kind of eyewitness verification

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. 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, based on secondary written sources, more than a 1000 years after the fact. 
    Secondly, the historian Titus Livius (59 B.C. - 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 753 B.C., 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. – 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, 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 to tell the truth. 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.

An excerpt regarding the accuracy of the Old Testament
" .....the Masoretic Text-('Masora' means 'written down' – the things of God written down so they could accurately be relayed to an oncoming generation) available as the JPS {Jewish Publication Society} Translation is the true text, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, even though the Scrolls are alleged to be more than a thousand years older. 
    The Jews were meticulous in guarding God's Old Testament word, so much so that even the slightest change, such as a comma to make the text appear clearer, was footnoted. We have much to be thankful to the Jews for -Romans 3:1,2; John 4:22.
    The Dead Sea material was not written by Jews who were given the charge by God to protect them. The Dead Sea Scroll writers were not of the Jewish tribe of Levi. They were Essenes, a Jewish cult of ascetics whose teachings were rife with heresies. 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 God, the-Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain of the LXX which we have extant today (c.350)." The LXX is another name for the Septuagint. In antiquity the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (Septuagint), Syriac, Jewish Aramic (the Targums) and Latin Vulgate.
    The Septuagint translation was commissioned by Ptolemy II (282-246 B.C), 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 the twelve tribes-(rounded off to seventy, whence the term LXX).

King James Bible:-preferred – The Textus Receptus by Erasmus is the Biblical Greek text and the King James must then be viewed as the faithful English rendering of that text. This Authorized Version, as it is called in the Old Testament portion, closely follows the accurate-Masoretic Text, which has been found to contain codes-(New Testament too) inserted by God to verify the authenticity of the Bible.
    The King James Version is predominant Bible of this age. Therefore it 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.
    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.
    It has also corrected the numerous misprints of the version, so that it is now 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 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.

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:-...continues next page

Subject Sampler_List of Topics_Search
A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ
Questions Lists_Free Stuff_Entrance
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-