When was the Bible originally translated into English?
375117
(From your hint, I take it the answer you want is #3 below, but I'll fill in the details nonetheless.)\n\nIt all depends on which "English" you are referring to\n\n1) OLD English -- there are several who translated at least parts of the Bible into Old English from the 7th to 9th centuries, beginning with the Venerable Bede.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations\n\n2) MIDDLE English -- this one, already mentioned, was a translation from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliff in the 1380s.  (Also note the important role Wycliff's persecuted followers, the "Lollards" played in setting the stage for the Reformation in England\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Bible_translations\n\n3) MODERN English -- the great century of early Modern English translations begins with William Tyndale's work, first made public with the publication of his New Testament translated from Greek (with some help/influence from Luther's slightly earlier German translation).  As you hint, by the time his Old Testament (from the Hebrew) came out, he was burned at the stake (1536).  Of course, in the following decades a number of English versions came out, culminating in the half new translation, half revision 'King James Version' in 1611 -- but ALL of them owe a great deal to Tyndale's work \n\nAs a matter of factd, many of the expressions that the KJV is credited with bringing into the English language actually go back to Tyndale, which makes him, together with Shakespeare, one of the two great shapers of modern English (analogous to Luther's influence on Modern German through his Bible translation.\nhttp://www.hertford.ox.ac.uk/alumni/tyndale.htm\n\nBut, speaking of Shakespeare, the story about his name being hidden in the Psalms [Psalm 46, actually] as a clue that he either helped translate or that the translators wished to honor him -- whichever version of the story you've heard-- is, sad to say, pure bunkum.  There are a number of things that tell against it (see links below for more), but probably the strongest points are"\n(a) the count doesn't even work unless you arbitrarily leave out the word "Selah" which in the KJV is treated as a regular part of the text\n(b) the Hebrew words for "shake" and "spear" were there in the Psalm all along, and translated this way in pre-King James translations back to Tyndale (many before Shakespeare was even born!)\nhttp://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/psalm-46-Shakespeare-in-KJV.html\nhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1828
771941
actually, the old testament came in Hebrew known as the Tanakh, the new testament is part Greek, part Hebrew. you can find it online, search for "Greek New Testament" or "Tanakh"
398715
As a seminary student it is a known fact that the NASB is the closest to the original text than any other version of the English Bible. The KJV is merely a translation of the Latin Vulgate. King James of Scotland ordered the English translation of the Bible in the 1600's from its Latin translation so the common people can read it. However, the Bible wasn't written in Latin.\n\nThe NASB however is a direct translation of the original Greek/Hebrew text of the scriptures taken from the Masoretic text. The NIV is a close second.\n\nIf you truly want to read and know the scriptures as close to the original text as it can get, then I suggest the NASB or NIV. Stay away from the KJV, it will only complicate the learning process.
672269
Ehem...Every single answer-WRONG!\nThe Catholics have a few translations of their own, and like your average protestant, don't get too worked up over translations, since almost all translations are pretty good.\nNew American Bible\nJerusalem Bible\nRevised Standard Version (composed by scholars from alot of different denominations-and some secular scholars, accepted by pretty much everyone, conservatives tend to prefer not to use it. But Catholics use it often)\nNew Revised Standard Version (a killer translation, also includes extra books in the catholic bible)\nDouay-Rheims Bible\n\nFor the record, the King James is far from the most accurate translation. It's still not a BAD translation, dont' get me wrong. But we've learned SO much in the last 400 years that there are a couple places (not hugely important places, but bible nonetheless) that are simply wrong, and alot of places that have been cleared up by extra manuscripts found, especially the dead sea scrolls, and some other things.\n\n\nThe King James is a disctinctly protestant Bible, although it originally had the extra 'catholic books' in it.\n\nEvery now and then you'll hear someone assert that the King James is the best translation, or even that it is THE PERFECT GOD-BREATHED translation, but this is simple ignorance. And they'll quote a couple of books, etc. but it's all from misunderstood history, bad scholarship, etc.\nThere is not a single scholar on the planet, Christian, atheist, or otherwise, that believes the KJV is the most accurate Bible on the market today. There are, however, a number of Christians who think this. These Christians are wrong.\nI don't mean to complain about the KJV, though. It's a pretty decent Bible, as most of them are. But there is stuff that would be easier to read, and virtually everything since then, especially the newer translations, will be a bit clearer in spots.\n\n\nFurther, the apocrypha:\n\nFor forever, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible. \nWell, when the Protestant Reformation took place, alot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty contreversial thing to say. \nSo Luther cut that stuff out.\nSo  the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same. So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.\n\nThis is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.\nSo now you understand the debate.\n\nVery few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the idea of Purgatory finds it's strongest support there), but there are various works of various merit.\n\nIf I were you, I'd go buy a New Revised Standard Version. It's a great translation, it's got the extra books (and even some extra books only used by the Eastern Orthodox churches) , but they are set apart, so you know where they're at, and when you're reading 'protestant bible' and 'catholic bible.'\n\nFor the record, I'd like to return to a Deutero-Canon. I think it fits better with how the early church and Jewish thinkers thought. But that's just commentary.\n\n-stephen\n\nAmendments:\nAll modern translations (with the exceptions of the Living Bible and 'The Message', which are translated from English) are based on Hebrew & Greek manuscripts.\nThe Masoretic text IS a Hebrew manuscript that is the firmest basis for not only the KJV, but also every other modern translation, as it is, almost always, the best text.  So note please, that all the Bibles, inc
394508
Bible's been translated in almost 32 langauges.\nList of translations\n\n    1 Afrikaans\n    2 Chinese\n    3 Croatian\n    4 Czech\n    5 Dutch\n    6 English\n    7 Esperanto\n    8 Finnish\n    9 French\n    10 German\n    11 Gothic\n    12 Greek (Modern)\n    13 Gullah\n    14 Hawaiian\n    15 Hungarian\n    16 Icelandic\n    17 Italian\n    18 Jèrriais\n    19 Klingon\n    20 Latin\n    21 Manx\n    22 Polari\n    23 Polish\n    24 Romanian\n    25 Spanish\n    26 Slavonic\n    27 Slovene\n    28 Swahili\n    29 Swedish\n    30 Welsh\n    31 Urdu\n    32 Hindi\n\n\nfor more information you can check it out here\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translation
1147768
Hey,\n\nDifferent translations doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible in THAT translation is not truth. The Bible was originally written to be relatable to the people of the time. Many believe nowadays that translations that are little "looser" attempt to do that --> relate the Bible to modern day a little more.\n\nSo there are two ends of the spectrum here; of course, at one end where everybody above has mentioned the King James Version, this side is the closest to the original Greek/Hebrew text. These versions include the King James Version (with all its thous and thees) and the New King James Version (replacing thee with you and etc). The New American Standard Bible fits in between the KJ version and the middle. \n\nOn the middle of the scale is the New International Version which is usually the most common in churches nowadays in North America; the Amplified Bible gives a lot of extra words in case you don't understand (amplified = expanded). The New Living Translation sits in between the middle and the far "liberal"/"loose" side. \n\nSo on the "loose" side, there would be the Message by Eugene Peterson - the Bible basically in contemporary, modern language. This version is the loosest you can get, with the English Standard Version sitting closer to this side than the middle.\n\nLemme draw this out:\nKing James                             ----     Most to Greek Text\nNew King James\nNew American Standard Bible\nNew International Version        ----   Middle Ground\nAmplified Bible\nNew Living Translation\nEnglish Standard Version\nMessage                                    --- Most to Modern Day Language\n\nEssentially, it depends on the purpose of your Bible. If it's for personal devotional time, it might be good to spring for a good study Bible that settles in the middle on that scale (ie. the New International Version Study Bible is a really good one; if you're a youth, go for the youth edition.)\n\nFor research and textual study, the King James line is good for you. \n\nFor modern day easy-read (maybe you commute and you just want to give the Bible a read w/o much thought into it), there's the Message version by Eugene Peterson.\n\nSo happy Bible reading! Remember, most important though is that you're not just reading, but allowing the Word to shape your life.
174422
I love this one - http://www.watchtower.org/bible/ - It's translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and written in modern , understandable English.
357515
Only the original documents themselves have been what we call "Inspired" by God.  Translations have been written with God's guidance.
519572
The Bible is the most widely distributed book in the world. It has been translated into scores of language for people across the globe. As far as English translations, there are numerous ways to translate a sentence or phrase from one language to the next. Various people are going to have differing opinions on how to properly structure the wording of what the original Greek or Hebrew is attempting to convey. If one checks the various translations against one another it can be easily seen that they all say the same thing, only with varying verbiage. Choice of which to use comes down to personal preference (mine is NIV). I began using the NIV many years ago. At the time, it was the first translation to utilize ancient scrolls that were discovered since the time of King James. While those scrolls did not change the message of the Bible, they did help to clarify some areas where the wording was unsure (due to deterioration of parchment etc).  For the most part, it comes down to personal preference in readability...
634627
The Hebrew word for "day" (or other period of time) is "YOM," not "yome."\n\nThe Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) were indeed translated into Greek.  The earliest Greek translation known is the Septuagint.  It was done in the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria.\n\nThe Greek word for "day" is ημέρα.  This is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint when translating the Hebrew word "yom."
85773
I've studied both Hebrew and Greek (the original languages of the Bible), and I've seen that most translations are correct. Yes, there are "different" Bibles, but most say basically the same thing. Minor differences in word style occur any time you translate a document. \n\nThis doesn't include translations that are done with a particular slant, like the New World Translation, for example. But the King James, New King James, New International Version, New American Standard, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, etc are all good.
453056
1. The Bible has many versions because translating a language into another language is slightly difficult.\n\n2. There is no "one" correct version. Almost all versions are acceptable but there are 3 different ways of translating. \nA. Some translate the Bible word for word.\nB. Some translate the Bible by paraphrasing and giving you the gist of what the passage means.\nC. Some combine both A and B to give a translation that's readable and hold's true to the original message.\n\n3. The Bible originally was written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). In that respect to the ORIGINAL documents there was only ONE version. We have different versions now because we don't all speak Hebrew and Greek.\n\n4. The Quran originally had only one version like the Bible. But through time it has been translated into different languages like the Bible and there are different versions. One such version is the new French translation of the Quran. Of course all Muslims believe that the only way to "really" read the Quran is in the original language. What most people don't know and what they don't tell Muslims in general is that the original copies of the Quran have all been lost when Uthman, the third Caliph(successor of Mohammed), gathered what was left of the Quran, arranged it by the length of Surahs rather than chronologically, then burned all other existing copies! That's why the Quran today is called Uthman's Quran.\n\n5. In fact the Quran is very different from the original copy. Aside from all copies being burned by Uthman leaving us no way of knowing if he changed any of it, the Quran is also under the sway of the doctrine of "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that when a recent verse in the Quran gives a contradictory view to another verse that preceded it (chronologically), the recent verse abrogates (cancels and replaces) the old verse and renders it null and void. This doctrine is derived from the Quran where Allah allegedly says in Surah 2:106; \n"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similiar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"\nAlso, in Surah 16:101;\n"When we substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou are but a forger": but most of them understand not."\n\nAccording to Muslim scholars, out of the 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that have  not been affected by this concept and had there verses cancelled and replaced.\nThe Bible (Old and New Testament) on the other hand has been preserved with an enourmous amount of greater accuracy.\n\nHope this answered your questions.
988772
The Bible before the KJV was the Latin Vulgate. You can find one translated in to english. Try latinvulgate.com or  google.com\nIt's the best since it was translated from the original greek centuries before the KJV.
1143643
Well yeah, kinda, but it was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic.\n\nEach time someone makes a new translation they do not use exactly the same English words. This is where most of the confusion comes from. There are some words we don't have an English word for-in that case several English words are used to get the meaning of the original. \n\nThere are some who believe in the 'double' inspiration of the KJV. This also causes problems when other translations don't exactly line up with the KJV.\n\nThere is about a little less that 1/2% discrepancy in all the text. No Biblical doctrine is affected. Any good translation id safe.\nKJV, NKJV, NIV, CSB, NAS, NASB,  all good. Some are easier to read than others, some are more word for word, some are more thought for thought.
1107115
The King James Version of the Bible is one of the oldest translations in English...there are many newer versions that are easier to read....check out biblegateway.com and you can read the Bible in various different translations.  My favorite is the American Standard Version!  Good luck to you and keep reading God's word...you'll be amazed how it will help you in your daily life and through the rough valleys of your journey.
1030627
30 different characters contributed to the bible over a period of around 30 years.  Then it was edited countless times by other characters.  Then rewritten a few times to be "clearer on certain subjects.".\n\nBy the time we got the modern version, there were no original copies left to check the authenticity and accurateness of the text.
1125864
the bible was written by man. keep that in mind.