What is the name of the first official translation of the Bible in English?
406165
In 1611 the King James bible was published as the first official English translation. There were other English translations in circulation before this date but they were never authorised and some were even banned by the King and were published in Holland and other locations abroad...
463614
If you count all the different translations to different languages there are a lot more. :-)\n\nBasically, the original text is in ancient hebrew or greek.  Translating from one language to another is very hard -- in fact there is no translation without interpretation. There are idioms (sayings) in any language that don't translate.  If someone called you a cabbage in French, it would be sweet and endearing.  In English it's just rude.  Then consider translating from one time to another.  The world is different, and English has changed from the time of King James to now, and sometimes the words don't carry.  For instance the word "suffer" used to mean "allow" so when Christ said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" in KJV, he wasn't suggesting that the kiddies be hurt.\n\nSo, in interpretation one can either be "literal" or "meaning preserving" or somewhere in between.  If somone asked Jesus when evil could be done in heaven and he said "when pigs fly" (I am just making this part up) then one interpreter could say "on the day that pigs fly in the sky" and the other could say "that would neve happen!".   Two interpretations, both correct.  This provides some of the division.  NAS is more literal, NIV is more meaning-preserving. \n\nOkay, to make it a little harder: when the early translations by Tyndale and the like were made, they only had a limited set of ancient copies to work from.  Since then, there have been more found, and older ones.  When you look at a modern translation (CEV, NAS, NIV) they are based on a wider collection of older manuscripts.  That probably means that they're more accurate.\n\nThen finally there are paraphrases like the Living Bible or the Amplified Bible, which are not translations from original manuscripts but a retelling of an existing translation in modern english, perhaps with more text added to get the point across better.\n\nSo the answer is to read a few of them.  It's a perfectly acceptable thing to get a paraphrase or a very modern easy-to-read translation (The Message, The Living Bible, etc) for your first read-through so that you become familiar with the overarching story line and the characters. You might like to get a chronological bible which orders the books in timeline order (most Bibles are ordered by category like law, history, wisdom, prophesy, life of Christ, early Christian church history, and then letters from disciples).  A chronological bible would help you see the story as it unfolded.\n\nThen, if you like, get a parallel bible so that you can see two, three, or four translations side-by-side and compare them. \n\nOn one hand, the real bible would be the original manuscripts or their most faithful reproductions in Hebrew or Greek.  \n\nBut if you are willing to look at it this way, the REAL bible is the events that happened, not any one recording of them by a particular author. If you see it this way, then reading any of them, or (better) several of them is the way to get the REAL bible. \n\nBut equally important are some small little tidbits: If one wants to know God then one must first believe that He exists, and secondly that He rewards those who honestly seek Him.  Secondly, that his word is never wasted.\n\nI hope this helps you.
238223
simple answer, the first page of the bible was ommited from the bible by the roman catholic church. it reads "Any events or people portrayed in this book are purely fittional andd any resemblance to real live is purely coincidental"
308369
You say the bible like it was the first book ever created.  I would say the Tao Te Ching, he Book of the Way and its Virtue from China.\n\nAnd yes, its older than the Bible.
1081496
The Bible - New International Version.., (NOT the TNIV).\nThe methodology used in translating and sniffing out suspect scriptures added after 13th and 14th centuries makes this translation the most reverent of most translations on the market today.\n\nEven so, I keep my King James, New King James and the King James Easy Reader versions on hand.
18964
The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word (τα) βιβλια.  This can be approximated in English as (ta) biblia, "(the) books."  The Bible is a collection of many individual sacred writings written at different times.    Each of these writings was called a book.  Thus, together they were called "the books."  When the Greek word entered into English, the pronounciation and spelling of the collective name changed so that they came to be called the Bible.
6167
The Old Testament was agreed upon by several Hebrew scholars collecting and translating the existing documents they had in their posession 2-3000 years ago...\n\nThe King James Version was the English translation of both the Old & New Testaments agreed upon by a panel for King James in 1611...
740790
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version \n\nWith Challoner Revisions 1749-52\n1899 Edition of the John Murphy Company\n\nIMPRIMATUR: \nJames Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.\n\nPope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St.  Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546. \n\nThe DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D.  The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D.  The first King James Version was not published until 1611.  This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants).  These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.  \n\nThe whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D.  The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. \n\nThe DR Bible was photographically reproduced from the 1899 edition of the John Murphy Company, Baltimore, Maryland, by Tan Books in 1971.  Eventually, this edition was optically scanned to produce a large text file which this publisher used for creating this website, with the aid of text-processing software. \n\nOne important goal of this project was to preserve the original text "as is", without making any changes in the wording, because the original text had the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dated Sept 1st 1899.  \n\nThe text file was checked quite thoroughly by software written by the publisher for punctuation errors and verses out of order.  The index was humanly checked for misspelled words and the corrections were made to the text.  However, some spelling errors may still be present in the text.  Many verses were out of order in the original file.  These have been corrected.  \n\nEvery effort was made to ensure that this online version is an exact match to the original printed version.  No words were added or ommitted from the text, except for correcting errors caused by the scanning process.  No words were rearranged.  No verse numbers were changed, except in the case of Psalm 9.  \n\nPsalm 9 originally contained 21 verses and there were 2 versions of Psalm 10, numbering 1-18 and 1-8.  This obviously caused a conflict, so it was decided to make the first Psalm 10 as the last part of Psalm 9 and renumber the verses 22-39.  This retains the same numbering as all the Douay Rheims. Note, in the Protestant Bibles the numbering of Psalms 10 through 146 differs by one.
116790
I wish to read it but only the original bible not the translations. I like to read each and actual words as sent by God not by humans.
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.
649140
Hi and thanks for a great question. I don't know how much you know about the history of the bible, but let me give you a quick review of the Catholic bible. Essentially, the Catholic Bible used for many years was a translation made with the best texts available back in the 1600's. \n\nSince that time, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has provided us with many more copies of the original text and therefore many translators have access to the mateiral and are able to produce more "modern" translations (the thees and thous tend to confuse rather than clarify for me). The best thing would be to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and read the original manuscripts yourself, but short of that, you can read different modern translations to get a better sense of what the original. \n\nFor example, compare this same verse in four translations:\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=31;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=49;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=51;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=46;\n\nNow with that said, I prefer to read some of the more modern translations as I said because it becomes clearer to me when I read it. I have provided some links to Catholic approved translations which I think you might find helpful. However, my suggestion is to pick one up, read your favorite passages (or your least favorite ;-) and see which one you like. \n\nIn particular, I found the New Living Translation and the Contemporary English Version to be very helpful especially for reading parts of the old testament taht can be a lttle hard to get through. I am currently reading the NASB, which I also like, and it does include the Apocrophya and is approved by the Catholic Church.\n\nHope this helps and that you will continue to read your bible and grow in Christ.
372674
Yes there are many mistakes. But also resources to check it out. In the original 1611 version the translators wrote a letter to the reader. Saying how carefully they did their work. But also they said there might be some imperfections. There are some words you can't translate. There are also figures of speach. Plus the translators did not have the benefit of the Masorrah. Deep subject and too complicated to go into here.\n\nThe KJV is the nearest to perfection. We have the benefit of resources, works of scholars, to check it out.
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
514641
I like the NKJV.  It's easy to read, but close to the KJV, which by some standards is most accurate.
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.
865372
Old Testament\nHow do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.\n\nNew Testament\nIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).\n\nThousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."\n\nWith all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies -
911937
The Catholics are using the Latin Vulgat Bible, obviously translated a couple of times, but yes, its the Jesiut bible. The christian bible and the catholic bible is NOT the same.