Religion & Spirituality >
Bible Study
RSS FeedWill people eventually write their own version of the Bible, in the manner of, say, Wikipedia?
Results so far:
| Yes | 49% | 183 votes | Total: 370 votes | |
| No | 51% | 187 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesPeople have been writing their own versions of the Bible for centuries. Why should anything change with the new century? The list that follows are just a few of the English translations of the Bible floating around today. These are just the English translations and versions, there are hundreds in other languages.
King James (1611 AD)
New American Standard (1962 AD)
The New World Translation (1950 AD, Jehovah's Witness)
New International (1978 AD)
New King James (1982 AD)
Amplified Bible (1987 AD most recent printing)
Contemporary English Version (1995 AD, American Bible Society)
Darby Translation (1890 AD)
Douay-Rheims Translation (NT 1582 AD, OT 1609 AD)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (unknown)
New Century Version (2005 AD)
New Life Version (1969 AD)
New Living Translation (1996 AD)
The Message (1993 AD)
There are purportedly over fifty translations in English alone. The Bible is the single most translated book. Compare the translations and you will find that they are persistently different. Different because they have been poorly translated to meet social standards of the day. Different because they have been added to or taken away from to meet the specific denominational beliefs of a religion. Different because the translators were not expert in the languages of Biblical scrolls. Whatever the reasons for the difference the fact is that the translations are different from each other and different from the original.
Historically man has been translating the Bible since before the days of Christ. The Septuagint was completed three years before the birth of Christ. The original language of the Old Testament would have been Ancient Hebrew a language that was no longer spoken even by most Jews of the time. The first translations were from Ancient Hebrew to Greek. The Greek Septuagint was the Old Testament that Paul used.
Another historical fact to consider is that by the time of Christ neither Greek nor Hebrew would have been the dominate language of Palestine; instead it is likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic. His words would have been translated from his original tongue into Greek. Then when they were actually gathered and written into the New Testament approximately 100 years after his death the dominate language of the time was Latin although most of the original was written at this time in Greek. However at the same time there were many versions in Latin as well.
The Vulgate appeared approximated 400 AD, translated primarily by St. Jerome. The Vulgate version became the dominate translation of the Bible adopted by the Church. For approximate eight centuries there were no additional translations of the Bible. It was not thought that the common man needed to read directly the Bible and thus further translation from Latin into common language was not required. It should be noted that during this time books were hand copied, the margin for error in translation were great.
Finally we come to approximate 1534 when William Tyndale began to translate Latin to the common English for the first time. Much of his translation was eventually adopted by the original King James Version of the Bible. As a side note William Tyndale was strangled and burned two years after the publication, specifically for issuing his translation. What is notable about the Tyndale translation is that it was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew.
Throughout the centuries there have been translations and yes, even rewrites of the Bible to fit the times. If one were to take the time to do a comparison of different Bibles and read them word for word you would be shocked by the variation in scripture. So will this century bring us new variations? I am sure that it will. The original languages of the Bible and those who wrote the original scrolls are lost to us. Man will always translate to fit the needs. Reliance upon the word of man will not gain you heaven.
http://www.tyndale.c am.ac.uk/scriptures/
http://www.biblegate way.com/versions/
Hoare, Evolution of the English Bible, p. 39.
Learn more about this author, Valentine Logar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
I'm going to vote no on this, but only the strictest possible interpretation of the title. Which bears a little closer examination, before I explain why. "Will people eventually write their own version of the Bible, in the manner of, say, Wikipedia?"
First of all, it might be worth reminding readers what Wikipedia is. The whole idea of any Wiki database is to provide a reference work that's collaborative. Depending on the popularity of the subject, this can involve anything from a few dozen to a few thousand people editing the pages. Now, I took that the title to suggest that people are going to be deciding what their personal beliefs are and entering those into a Wiki database. What would be the point of this if, a day later, someone else is going to edit them and put different, perhaps rapidly contrasting beliefs in place? This happens on Wikipedia.org all the time, to the point where moderators actually lock certain subjects to avoid vandalism. But who gets to decide which subjects to lock in a Biblical wiki? And for that matter, who decides who gets to be a moderator, and have that level of control over other's personal beliefs?
So, the wiki part is problematic, to be charitable. Then you have to look at the 'Bible' part of the debate. If you're someone who subscribes to this book, I was under the impression that it was supposed to either be the literal word of God himself. Either that, or the divinely inspired gospel of his apostles, made flesh through his inspiration. If that's the case, what's the point of an online version which people can edit to their heart's content? Surely they're all not divinely inspired, coming together in a huge group to write a flawless set of instructions on how to live? And if, by some odd chance, every person who contributes IS divinely inspired, why bother writing the manual out? They already know what's what.
So, as I said at the beginning, I voted 'no' on this, simply because it's a bad concept to begin with. You might as well ask whether Jesus will start a blog or not, or if God is on Facebook. But when you look at the question a little more vaguely than I've been doing, isn't this what people do anyway?
The book's been around for what, 2,000 years, some of it a lot longer. It's gone from the Hebrew to Koine Greek, to Latin, to English. There are more interpretations and versions out there than possibly any other book in print. And I've noticed a couple of curious tendencies among people who believe in the Bible. Firstly, the more fervently they claim it to be the word of God, the more ignorant they tend to be in what's actually in the book. I often wonder if some of them have ever opened the covers at all. Secondly, the more fervently people claim to follow its teachings, the more bits they tend to miss out. They're fine with 'thou shalt not kill', but miss the part about not eating seafood, or wearing blended fabrics, for instance. Some of them will claim at this point that Leviticus, to pick a particularly problematic book, isn't relevant in today's society, and is overriden by the New Testament. Except, it seems, the bit about homosexuality, which remains incredibly relevant and topical. Or the parts about an eye for an eye, which apparently set a precedent which overrides 'turn the other cheek', depending what mood you're in.
For a book which is supposed to be immutable divine law, people have been doing such things for centuries. The only reason they don't do this online is the practicability of it.
Learn more about this author, Dave Simmons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
