No, the King James WAS NOT the first. The KJV was a revision.
The Wycliffe bible was the first version in English. I don't think that it is in print anymore.
2007-01-19 03:10:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Randy G 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
While the King James is the best known of the early English translations, the FIRST English translation was made by William Tyndale in the early 1500s. He completed the entire New Testament and about a third of the Old before his death. The translation was completed by Miles Covendale.
However, like most of the early Protestant Bible translations, it was printed with one column of Bible text, and another of notes and commentaries on each page. Those commentaries were very anti-Catholic and controversial. Same is true of the Geneva Bible and the Great (or Bishop's) Bible which appeared in the late 1500s.
It was because of the commentaries and the fighting they were causing between different Protestant groups that as the head of the Church of England King James ordered the creation of an "Authorized Version" of the Bible which include no notes ot commentaries - just the text.
The translators borrowed heavily from Tyndale's earlier version when they created theirs. Released in 1611, and dedicated to King James, it as come to be know as the "King James" Bible.
2007-01-19 03:11:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by dewcoons 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The first major English translation of the New Testament was coompleted by John Wyclif in 1382. the first printed English Bible was the New Testament as translated by William Tyndale in 1525. The first complet English Bible was the work of Miles Coverdale. King James Version of the bible was completed in 1611.
2007-01-19 03:11:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by MrsG 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'll try and look it up for you
Edit: Here is a list of the early translations
995 - Anglo-Saxon (early english) translations of the New Testament produced.
1382 - John Wycliffe translated the first English Bible from the Latin Vulgate (hand written)
1455 - Gutenberg invents the printing press.
- The first book printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516 - Erasmus produces a Greek/Latin parallel New Testament.
1522 - Martin Luther produces a German New Testament.
1526 - William Tyndale translated the first English New Testament from the Greek.
- Copies of the New Testament are smuggled into England.
1611 King James Version
2007-01-19 03:05:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by oldguy63 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The FIRST version that was translated to English is no longer availble to the masses. Are you talking about English as we know it today or are you talking about OLD ENGLISH that sounds like German?
I believe the Wycliffe Bible was the first published English translation in 1380.
"Wycliffe's first version of the New Testament in Middle English was published in 1380, and a second edition appeared in 1388 after his death. The first edition was a word-for-word translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate, in places following the Latin so closely that the meaning was obscured. Later the Old Testament was added. Most of it was probably prepared by Nicholas of Hereford, Wycliffe's friend, before trouble broke out in Oxford in 1382 and forced him to leave." pg. 280
Wycliffe was considered a heretic for translating the Bible into English. Because they thought Latin was the only "appropiate" language to read the Bible in.
REGARDING OLDGUY'S COMMENTS:
The Anglo-Saxon translations were only small portions and not an entire Bible.
"Aldhelm, the first Bishop of Sherborne in Dorset and one of the most outstanding scholars of his day, was the first to translate a portion (the Psalter) of the Latin Vulgate into Anglo-Saxon about 700." pg. 273
If you would like information on how to choose a modern English translation feel free to IM me. I will help you!
2007-01-19 03:04:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You've received some good answers here. For those who point to the KJV, they need to remember that it was revised five times over a 150 years time period before it could be Authorized by the Church of England. I wonder what was wrong with the first four that they were not good enough?
Something not mentioned is that the Catholic Church declared the act ot translating the Bible into English heretical and required your death.
2007-01-19 03:25:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
King James was the first but a very good easy reading Bible is the New international Version or the New King James version. They are the closest in translation to the Old King James but they are easier to read.
2007-01-19 03:05:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by I-o-d-tiger 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
The King James is a direct translation of the bible.
2007-01-19 03:03:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
King James
2007-01-19 03:03:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Shayna 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
almost the majority of Christians don't even know where the original manuscripts are located at. None of the Christian Churches have, in their possession, a copy in either Hebrew or Greek that is based on the original manuscripts. Christians have translations, translations, translations and as for the original Bible, it's buried somewhere overseas collecting dust.
The Bible (OT & NT) has endured many severe predicaments because of the language barrier. The original manuscripts (ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures) were translated to Greek and Latin. In fact, from the year 800 AD to 1539 AD, Latin was the only language of the Bible. Because of the continuous waves of translations; Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to English; Christians most definitely and seriously handicapped any attempts to faithfully translate the original author's intended meanings. This problem, all thanks be to the Almighty (swt), has been completely avoided in the Qur'an, since it has remained from the time of its inspiration to the present day in the same language it was originally revealed in, the Arabic Language. The Arabic Language has remained a living language from that day to this, and the book itself has always been in the hands of the people and not "the elite."
----------
The original, unchanged revelations given to Abraham and other prophets(like Moses and Jesus ) reaching back to Adam all came from the One True God(The Creator). This common origin explains their similarities in many beliefs and values
However, over time the teachings of the various religions, due to a variety of reasons, have become distorted and mixed with made-man ideas.
The last Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad , who is a direct descendant of Abraham through his first born son, Ishmael, was sent with the Last Guidance, Revelation and Testament, the Holy Qur'an(koran) to amend and correct the changes and corruption made to the the "Torah" which was sent to Moses and theTrue Gospel of Jesus.To say the truth ,God preserved all the other Holy Books plainly by preserving His Last Book the Holy Qur'an(koran)which contains the right and the truth of all that was changed in those other Books.
This is why this last Revelation which was sent 1423 years ago has remained unchanged, not even a word or a letter has been altered.
There is not even one word of difference between two Arabic Qur'ans, anywhere in the world. There has been no disagreements in history among Muslims as to what should and should not be in the Qur'an. However, in the case of the Bible, even the most ancient manuscripts conflict with one another so that no two are identical. Footnotes in all modern versions of the Bible prove this fact.
These revisions serve as concrete proofs that all the Biblical books are not at all divinely inspired. This is because it is beyond man's ability to correct the work of his Creator, who alone is Almighty and perfect
It was only natural for Almighty God to preserve the scripture revealed to Prophet Muhammad, because he was the last Prophet and Final Messenger of God.
Islam teaches us that we must pray directly to God without an intermediary and no soul can bear the burden of another and that the nature of humanity is good, and we did not inherit sin from Adam. Each soul comes into being free of sin.in Islam there are no priests or clergy -- each worshipper, man or woman, has a direct relationship with their Merciful Creator -- Almighty God. Since God is the Owner and Sustainer of everything, as well as the only one who can provide true and complete forgiveness, it is completely futile to try to approach Him through anyone else.
The oneness and universality of God's message requires that people accept all the messengers of God. Rejecting one of them amounts to rejecting them all. The Jews reject Jesus's mission and Muhammad's mission; the Christians reject Muhammad's mission; whereas the Muslims accept them all, but reject incorrect historical interpretations and human elements in these missions.
As the Qur'an is the final revelation and Muhammad is the final prophet, humanity is obligated to accept it: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual good" (3:86).
The Final Prophet Muhammad said: "Whoever believes there is no god but God, alone without partner, that Muhammad is His messenger, that Jesus is messenger of God, and that Paradise and Hell are true, shall be received by God into Heaven."
you can do that now as you are reading these lines is to pronounce the two confirmations and attestations of faith, here it is
I BEAR WITNESS THAT THERE IS NO GOD WORTHY OF WORSHIP EXCEPT ALLAH ( ARABIC WORD MEANS ONE GOD-THE CREATOR). AND I BEAR WITNESS THAT MUHAMMAD IS HIS SERVANT AND MESSENGER. I BEAR WITNESS THAT JESUS IS HIS SERVANT AND MESSENGER.
The right picture of lslam is conveyed in the Qur'an, which is exemplified by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The reality is that it is not fair to judge a religion by the actions of its followers alone because there are good and bad followers in every religion. The correct thing to do is to judge a religion by its documented revelation from God and the prophet who brought that revelation.
I encourage Christians and other religions to learn about Islam from Muslim sources and The Basis Of The Muslim Belief and not rely on second hand information which in many cases is distorted or contains a deep seated anti Muslim agenda. This is indeed a more scholarly approach
For more info
http://www.islamdoor.com/
http://www.thetruereligion.org/
BestWishes
2007-01-19 03:50:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by BeHappy 5
·
0⤊
2⤋