thegdin

what are the differences between the different versions of the bible? (gideons, king james, etc etc)

Joshua Adams

They're (King James and etc.) different English translations of the original, which was written in Hebrew and Greek, with a little Aramaic thrown in.

However, there isn't exactly one "original", but a plethora of mostly similar manuscripts, which have slight variations in different places. Some translations may differ because of which source document(s)'s wording they decide to use.

If you're asking for some list of differences, that would not be humanly possible.

The Gideon Bible is a King James bible left in hotel rooms by Gideon International, a Christian group.

Chris Weimer

Gideon's leaves out the Old Testament except for Psalms and Proverbs. Most modern Bibles are based somewhat on Westcott-Hort except for minor variations. KJV relied mostly on Textus Receptus except for certain places which it deferred to the Vulgate. The Catholic Bible is translated from the Latin. the JPS translation is only the Tanakh (OT in Christian terms) and translated from the Masoretic Text. There's so many, though, it would be impossible to discuss the myriad differences therein.

Any specific Bible you want to know about?

thegdin

thanks for the responses.

the motivation for asking this question was just curiosity. i was just curious how different the different versions were. im not looiking for anything specifically. are there any major conflicts between the different versions. for instance, do people that follow one version look down on the people who follow a different version?



it has always amazed me that there can be so many different versions of the "infallible word of god" :huh:

Joshua Adams

Depends. There are fundamentalists known to others as "KJV onlyists", who believe the King James Version is perfect and the only legitimate version of the Bible. These people are so deluded that they think St. Paul carried a Bible around with him, however. They do not seem to be aware that the KJV is a 1611 translation, or that the modern KJV is updated for spelling.

Also, certain Catholics I know favour the Douay Rheims and think other, Protestant translations are theologically in error.

And then you have those of the scholarly bent who look down on people who cite the KJV, NIV, and other comparitively inaccurate translations.

Naphtali Jones

There is a whole movement, mostly among hardline Baptist churches, for "King James Only". They believe that newer translations, especially the NIV (New International Version) are inspired by the Devil to throw doubt upon the Word of God. There are a few differences which might seem unimportant to the casual reader but to someone who stakes their beliefs on the doctine of infallibility of scripture, a few words can make a huge difference.

The KJV Only people claim that the NIV was based on Alexandrian Texts and Alexandria was the capital of Gnosticism during the early centuries of Christianity. They also claim that one of the scholars working on creating the NIV was an admitted lesbian. I remember reading the quote: "imagine how she could have twisted the story of Sodom and Gommorrah for her own motives", despite the fact that there is no discernable difference in the basic story from one version to the next. Ironically, good old King James himself was rumoured to "bat for the other team".

For specific differences there are plenty of lists that can be found through a simple google search.

Naphtali Jones

I remember Jimmy Swaggart saying, "If the King James was good enough for Paul and Silas then it's good enough for me".

Sheshbazzar

It seems that every clique or cult that has some particular doctrinal ax to grind has published a "Version" so edited as to conform to their own viewpoint, of course the relatively mainstream Versions are those that are the most distributed, and may be purchased or ordered at any bookstore.
But there are other versions that in having appeal only to the sensibilities of a limited market, are published in such relatively small quantities as to remain virtually unknown, these versions sometimes contain relatively large changes and emendations that the general public, being accustomed to the mainstream renditions, is uncomfortable with.
Most people with a religious bent are conservative, and want their religion and Bible dressed up in a relatively 'Traditional' garb lest they should suffer the contempt of being called "cult members".
I have obtained a few of these arcane versions over the years, some are so obscure that I doubt there is another copy to be found within my entire state, and maybe only a couple of dozen in the entire US.
Even the most mundane of versions will contain hundreds, if not thousands of minor differences, usually just minor spelling changes, or changes in the sentence structures, updated language, or paraphrases of difficult texts, or differing chapter and verse divisions (as exemplified in the KJV vs. Douay versions)
Other changes may reflect real doctrinal differences, (the inclusion of the Apocrypha)
Just a brief, if rambling, summary of the differences that may be found, I can open up ten different versions to the same verse and have ten different renderings to compare, and if need be, to choose among, and if none of the English versions suit my fancy, I can employ the Hebrew or the Greek and do my own translating to assist me in making up my mind as to what was the original intent.

Skeptical

Hahahahahahahahahahah! :rolling:

Seriously...wait.... :rolling:

That's awesome! I don't know if your joking or not, but even if you are I can see Swaggart and his ilk saying something like that.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: "If it ain't King James it ain't bible" (or some such nonsense)

Which immediately reminded me of another bumper sticker I saw: "It's not the heat, it's the stupidity"

Again, thanks for that, made my day.