Disagreement with what is presented as God's word.

[37818]

Genesis 3:1, ". . . Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? . . ."

Luke 4:4, ". . . And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. . . ."

And so now we have competing world religions, Christian sects and cults. And competing Bible translations in our English language.

 

[Conan]

. . And competing Bible translations in our English language.

And it used to be illegal to have the Bible in English at all.

Please see William Tyndales prologue to the 5 books of Moses 1530. I only copied one paragraph. The rest at Tyndale's Prefaces

W.T. to the Reader
When I had translated the New Testament, I added a pistle unto the latter end, in which I desired them that were learned to amend if ought were found amiss. But our malicious and wily hypocrites which are so stubborn and hardhearted in their wicked abominations that it is not possible for them to amend anything at all (as we see by daily experience when their both livings and doings are rebuked with the truth) say, some of them, that it is impossible to translate the scripture into English, some that it is not lawful for the lay people to have it in their mother tongue, some that it would make them all heretics — as it would no doubt from many things which they of long time have falsely taught, and that is the whole cause wherefore they forbid it, though they other cloaks pretend. And some, or rather every one, say that it would make them rise against the King, whom they themselves (unto their damnation) never yet obeyed. And lest the temporal rulers should see their falsehood, if the scripture came to light, causeth them so to lie

The rest of the prologue at Tyndale's Prefaces

 

[Conan]

Did not mean to go off topic on your thread 37818. Just took me back to a day when we had no English Translations.

Now, it's all about marketing and cash cows. Hopefully this video helps with your thread.

 

[37818]

And competing Bible translations in our English language.

@Conan, I am referring to our modern Bibles.

The video you picked was, I think on topic.

,[Now the issue of the Hebrew and LXX being quoted or referenced in the New Testament. Are the autographs from which our copies come inerrant? I believe so. So where the New testament cite the LXX correcting the Hebrew, it must. Galatians 3:17, Exodus 12:40.]

 

[Deacon]

Bible translations do not “compete” among themselves, if a competition exists it’s in the minds and tongues of those who promote dissension.

…we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.​

…A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
From the Original Preface to the King James Version​

Rob

 

[37818]

New Bible translations do not “compete” among themselves, if a competition exists it’s in the minds and tongues of those who promote dissension.

Not as such. But choices are made between textual readings or where there are different translation choices to be made the different outcomes are real.

 

[JonC]

I was about to say we do not have competing Bible translations, but @Deacon best me to it.

These translations are not competing but they do have different philosophies, interpretations and methods of translation.

IMHO we are better for having several translations in the English language.

 

[Conan]

I wish we had a committee translation of the Byzantine Text. Or anyway, a New American Standard Version that uses the Byzantine Majority Text. I do have the Boyd Translation referenced in the above video, and I like it's many Text notes.
The problem with many translations is that they use Nestle/Aland UBS. Everyone of modern Versions use what in my opinion is the least accurate text. Our first Greek Text used for English Translation was made using only a few manuscripts. The first editor consulted the Latin Vulgate a lot. He didn't always make the right choices, but happily his manuscripts were of the Byzantine Text type so his text ended up to be a very accurate one. Not perfect of course, but accurate. All of the more modern Greek Texts done by single persons or a few people are flawed in the fact they used non Byzantine manuscripts filled with mistakes like haplography. These editors wrongly though that certain words or even phrases were not original because they were missing from a few ancient manuscripts. However, it turns out they are missing because scribes accidently made copied mistakes. They were only human after all. But the majority of scribes would not make the same mistakes. So all manuscripts must be used, not a tiny handful.

A very helpful book on the subject is