I aslo wanted to ask: why were there 7 books excluded from the bible- i know one of the is the book of Sirach.
They are not found in the original Hebrew versions of the Bible (atleast not all of them--i heard pieces here and there of them are being found in Hebrew). So protestants publishers of most of the Bible translations chose not to include them. But they can be found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, of which our Coptic Bible is translated.
Ohhh, hello.... our sunday school teacher told us kinda about publishing bibles and all that a few weeks ago. The protestants publish the books coz otherwise it would be too expensive to publish them ourselves with our ways and things. A lot of stuff is missing from it because it is published by them so it follows their rules if u get me...??? yeh i dont know if that helps but yeh. I dont know if it is translated by them tho soo yeh cya
[quote author=I belong to Jesus link=topic=10052.msg122802#msg122802 date=1290760189] Ohhh, hello.... our sunday school teacher told us kinda about publishing bibles and all that a few weeks ago. The protestants publish the books coz otherwise it would be too expensive to publish them ourselves with our ways and things. A lot of stuff is missing from it because it is published by them so it follows their rules if u get me...??? yeh i dont know if that helps but yeh. I dont know if it is translated by them tho soo yeh cya
That's what I was taught too... must've been the same person who told us this ;)
I suspect you might find that this (as so many things in life) is quite a complex issue. Bible translation is a minefield. I suspect that there isn't any one translation that everyone will ever be happy about. Different groups and different poeple have translated the bible for different purposes throughout history. It is likely that almost any translation out there will in some small (or sometimes big ways) reflect the theological position of those who did the translation. And yes, many of the most recent and modern translations have been made by protestants. Invariably some of their own theological biases will creep into the text. Do these small 'mistakes' or changes in translation radically alter the message of the whole text? In most cases the answer is no. Translations also differe based on the theory of translation underpinning the text. Some translators make 'interpretive traslations' where they try to 'interpret' the meanings behind the text. (I am sometimes slighlty wary of these translations.) Other translators attempt to make 'literal' translations. Biases creep into both kinds of translations, but I prefer literal translations. Father Thomas Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox Priest, has a podcast on Ancient Faith Radio. In two or three of his most recent podcasts, where he discusses reading the bible and english bible translations, he discussed the issues surrounding buble translation. I would suggest listening to this. The link is:
WOW.. Thank you all for the responses, made thing a whole lot clearer. But does anyone know where i can find the 7 books excluded from the bible- online.
The Orthodox Study Bible is great, is translated from the Septuagaint and has the Deuterocanon (the books Protestants exclude). It is also translated by the Orthodox Church.
Hey all, saw this topic and couldn't help but to be intrigued because this seems to be something most are unaware of. Originally the Bible specifically the Old testament, at the time of the apostles, was around and used in the form of the Septuagint and due to the conquest of Alexander (who basically turned Greek into the universal language of the world, much like English nowadays) was translated to Greek and as thus is the document used by the Church before the New Testament even existed as whole. As you all know the New Testament was gradually being published by its respective authors after the ascension of Christ and all the book had been 'published' by around 90-100 ad with the Revelation of St. John being the last book. The Tanak itself (composed of the torah, neviim, and ketuvim) was finally 'canonized' by the Jews at the council of Jamnia that is supposed to have happened around 100-150 ad. This cannon of scripture did not include the books now called 'apocrypha' by Protestants. Thus not only was the Old Testament (used by the Christians, ie the Septuagint) but also the New Testament were both in existence by the time the Jews finalized their cannon. At this time the Septuagint was considered scripture by the Christians (Indicated when St. Paul repeatedly refers to "the scriptures" in his letters. He surely was not talking about his own letter :P) as it is in fact older than the Jewish Old Testament. This has also been historically corroborated by the finding of the dead sea scrolls that confirm the authenticity and early dating (ie BC) dating of the Septuagint (which includes the so-called 'apocrypha'). All of these books (from the Septuagint) and the current books of the New Testament were then formally canonized into one book (The BIBLE!) by the Church at the council of Hippo in 397, and has been in use ever since. However the Jews insisted that the scriptures be read in Hebrew in order to get the true meaning (much like arabic and the qu'aran), and thus tried to suppress the reading of Jewish Scripture in any language other than Hebrew. The Church was already set in it's ways and thus kept translating their Bibles in the other languages and kept their cannon the way the Orthodox cannon is now.
However when the protestant reformation came about this became a hot button issue. Martin Luther (a german monk) was displeased with many Catholic practices (such as indulgences, insistence on latin scripture, corrupt clergy, etc). But specifically he took issue with the fact that the Catholic Church insisted on maintaining the scriptures in latin, and thus no lay person would even be able to read the Bible. During the reformation he wanted to translate the scriptures into German (his native tongue) and other vernacular languages. At this time he had two choices, he could either have translated the Bible from the Catholic latin scripture (which is based on the Septuagint Old Testament, the same as the Orthodox) or he could have used the Jewish Old Testament to translate it. In order to stray as far as possible from the Catholic Church he elected to use the Jewish Old Testament even though all of Christendom had previously used the Septuagint. An interesting side story is that he also wanted to axe the Epistle of St. James due to the verse "Faith without works is dead" because it opposes the Protestant doctrine of Justification (but thats another topic for another time :P). He wasnt concerned with accuracy as much as he wanted to spite the Catholics. In response the Catholics held the council of Trent and excommunicated him BUT it reaffirmed the Septuagint, naming the books, Martin Luther omitted, the Deutro cannon (or literally second cannon). To this day the Catholics and Orthodox use the exact same Bible (with some different names) and the Protestants use the Jewish Old Testament. The only reason most Bibles around are Protestant is due to the massive amounts of resources and freedom protestant publishers have had especially here in the west in comparison to The Orthodox Church which has faced much suppression the entire way (perfect example is the Coptic Orthodox Church). SORRYYYYYY for the huge post and I hope this cleared up any issues anyone was having.
Comments
cya
Ohhh, hello.... our sunday school teacher told us kinda about publishing bibles and all that a few weeks ago. The protestants publish the books coz otherwise it would be too expensive to publish them ourselves with our ways and things. A lot of stuff is missing from it because it is published by them so it follows their rules if u get me...??? yeh i dont know if that helps but yeh. I dont know if it is translated by them tho soo yeh
cya
That's what I was taught too... must've been the same person who told us this ;)
I suspect you might find that this (as so many things in life) is quite a complex issue. Bible translation is a minefield. I suspect that there isn't any one translation that everyone will ever be happy about. Different groups and different poeple have translated the bible for different purposes throughout history. It is likely that almost any translation out there will in some small (or sometimes big ways) reflect the theological position of those who did the translation. And yes, many of the most recent and modern translations have been made by protestants. Invariably some of their own theological biases will creep into the text. Do these small 'mistakes' or changes in translation radically alter the message of the whole text? In most cases the answer is no. Translations also differe based on the theory of translation underpinning the text. Some translators make 'interpretive traslations' where they try to 'interpret' the meanings behind the text. (I am sometimes slighlty wary of these translations.) Other translators attempt to make 'literal' translations. Biases creep into both kinds of translations, but I prefer literal translations. Father Thomas Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox Priest, has a podcast on Ancient Faith Radio. In two or three of his most recent podcasts, where he discusses reading the bible and english bible translations, he discussed the issues surrounding buble translation. I would suggest listening to this. The link is:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko
Best Wishes
Gerhard
Thank you and god bless
PFMW
You can read the Deuterocanon here at the bottom of the page: http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
However when the protestant reformation came about this became a hot button issue. Martin Luther (a german monk) was displeased with many Catholic practices (such as indulgences, insistence on latin scripture, corrupt clergy, etc). But specifically he took issue with the fact that the Catholic Church insisted on maintaining the scriptures in latin, and thus no lay person would even be able to read the Bible. During the reformation he wanted to translate the scriptures into German (his native tongue) and other vernacular languages. At this time he had two choices, he could either have translated the Bible from the Catholic latin scripture (which is based on the Septuagint Old Testament, the same as the Orthodox) or he could have used the Jewish Old Testament to translate it. In order to stray as far as possible from the Catholic Church he elected to use the Jewish Old Testament even though all of Christendom had previously used the Septuagint. An interesting side story is that he also wanted to axe the Epistle of St. James due to the verse "Faith without works is dead" because it opposes the Protestant doctrine of Justification (but thats another topic for another time :P). He wasnt concerned with accuracy as much as he wanted to spite the Catholics. In response the Catholics held the council of Trent and excommunicated him BUT it reaffirmed the Septuagint, naming the books, Martin Luther omitted, the Deutro cannon (or literally second cannon). To this day the Catholics and Orthodox use the exact same Bible (with some different names) and the Protestants use the Jewish Old Testament. The only reason most Bibles around are Protestant is due to the massive amounts of resources and freedom protestant publishers have had especially here in the west in comparison to The Orthodox Church which has faced much suppression the entire way (perfect example is the Coptic Orthodox Church).
SORRYYYYYY for the huge post and I hope this cleared up any issues anyone was having.
Pray for me