Close Topic Options

History of the Bible

History of the Bible

Most people do not understand that the Bible is a book that contains many other books. Who compiled it and how we have it today is quite a history. Research into it will show you that the Bible had tough times in becoming the English version we have today. In fact, many died, went into hiding or exile just for attempting to translate it into English. Feel free to add more...

The Oldest scroll (usually written on animal skin) ever found was the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah, found in a cave near the dead sea. During the time of Christ, Jesus would have read from sticks or scrolls written in Hebrew and in Greek (an international language by that time). Papyrus was used after Christ for what we now have as the 'New Testament'. The oldest known piece of such a papyrus contains some words from the eighteenth chapter of John.

405 AD The first translation of the Bible into Latin by Jerome (known as the 'Vulgate')

1611 AD The 'authorized' King James Version available to all.

Bible the History

I am surprised no one has taken this thread up, alas there may be too many issues here already, but I will add to it soon. One thing that strikes me about the Bible today is how Modern English speakers try to 'perfect it' and take away its whole meaning at the same time.

History of the Bible Studies Doctrine Mormon

I have two pet peeves about what people like to do when quoting from the Bible.  Specifically, I am speaking of fundamentalist christians.  I don't mean it as a bashing of them, just an observation.

First, they say that Revelation 22:18 is an example of why the Book of Mormon can't be true scripture.  

QUOTE

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Yet the book of Revelations is not the last one to have been written in the Bible.  It just happens to be placed in the Bible as the last book.  Some do it out of ignorance, but others to intentionally deceive.

The other peeve is something I see a lot of televangelists do.  They will choose different translations throughout the message they are delivering when quoting scripture depending upon what their message is.  So, if one version is more in line with what they are trying to say a scripture means, then they quote that translation of the scripture, then further along in their message they will quote another scripture from a different translation.  They piece together several different translations as though they were one.  I don't know why no one seems to find this to be wrong.  Seems to me you should pick whichever translation you think is most accurate and then use it period.  Not jump around saying, well I like how the King James says this and I like better how the New Living Bible says this, etc.  In other words, if I don't like what is in this Bible I will just keep searching other Bibles until I find a translation that says what I want it to say, but I won't limit myself to just that translation.  I will pick and choose each scripture to make it say what I want it to say.

Bible the History

I agree with you Tenaheff. When I was on my mission I encountered that a lot. Many (maybe 95%) of the people you come in contact with, even if they are avid church goers, do not know how the Bible came to be or how it is compiled. Thus they are ignorant as to the need for more scripture. Actually, greater research in this area will lead a person to accept the Book of Mormon.

Bible the History

Now in one of our Articles of Faith says:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."


And howfar it is translated correctly? how do we know where?

History of the Bible

QUOTE

And howfar it is translated correctly? how do we know where?

Joseph Smith translated the Bible correctly, but I notice that the Church does not make much use of it except for a few within the cross-reference and back of the LDS published KJV Bible.

History the Bible

I was under the impression that he never finished the translation.  Am I mistaken?

Anyway, I believe all of his changes are in fact in LDS published Bibles.  When I read from the Bible, I always check for cross references to his translation with each verse that I read.  This way I can be sure I am reading the scripture in as best a translation as we have today.

This is important because some of the changes make a huge difference in meaning.  For example, in Exodus when the scriptures say Pharoah's heart was hardened, it really should say Pharoah hardened his heart.  This puts the blame squarely where it belongs on Pharoah rather than appearing like it wasn't fair how Pharoah was treated.

History the Bible Mormon Doctrine Studies

QUOTE

I was under the impression that he never finished the translation.  Am I mistaken?

Not sure on this one and busy to look up now. Maybe you can find out and let us know with a reference?

The Bible we have now is really much smaller than all the scrolls that have been made of by the Prophets in the Eastern World. If we ever get hold of the Dead Sea Scrolls in its full form I wonder if the World will be accepting of adding it to the Bible? The catholics have other books in their Bible referred to as the Apocrypha... Bel and the Dragon, Esther II, etc.

This once again shows the importance of the Book of Mormon as the keystone in understanding how it all 'fits together'.