when you prayed over the BoM...

[Jenamarie]

when did the new testment then come to be formed?

Lost, I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I think it may because you read my date wrong. I mentioned 900 A.D., and I think you may be talking about B.C. ?? In regards to the people having access to the O.T.?

ETA: The New Testament was formed around 3-400AD, right?

[Hemidakota]

when did the new testment then come to be formed?

They had partial scrolls of the NT or perhaps many more scrolls [more than it is recorded than the NT] that were kept but the actual book was finalized after the fourth council.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi: Martin Luther was truely inspired. He did SO MUCH for Christianity and paving the way for the Restoration.

During those dark times, people like this as you said, paved the way....I am always fascinated about there lives they lived and the trials they went through. Something I have to wait until the next life to see and feel it.

[lostnfound]

Lost, I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I think it may because you read my date wrong. I mentioned 900 A.D., and I think you may be talking about B.C. ?? In regards to the people having access to the O.T.?

ETA: The New Testament was formed around 3-400AD, right?

i don't know i have to check. but i know paul was writing from prison and to all the churches ..they had his letters and so forth..so God's word was around to the churches..even after those witnesses left. God's word was still around. old and new. God has perserved his word throughout history.

[Jenamarie]

i don't know i have to check. but i know paul was writing from prison and to all the churches ..they had his letters and so forth..so God's word was around to the churches..even after those witnesses left. God's word was still around. old and new. God has perserved his word throughout history.

Indeed, the books of the Bible were miraculously preserved, BUT, certain men and churches sure did their best to keep it out of the hands of the common man. For nearly a millenium the N.T. was only written in Latin, a language which the vast majority of believers couldn't understand, or only had a very basic understanding of. They couldn't go home and study the Bible independently, they had to rely on a priest to read it to them, and tell them if their lives were conforming to what was written in it. A lot of attrocities against true believers occured in the name of the "preserving" the faith, and the general body of the church had no way of confirming if what the church in that day was doing was truely in line with the Bible. Inspite of all this there were many genuine believers, and I believe it was because of the Witness of the Spirit ("feelings") they recieved, because of their desire for the Truth, that they were able to come to this knowledge, inspite of man's best efforts to use religion as a source of control.

[Hemidakota]

Something that Doc T may appreciate - English version of the Bible history

English Versions

English Versions of the Bible may be divided into two classes: Manuscript Bibles and Printed Bibles.

Dr. Kenyon (of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum) has traced the English translations as set out below. (F. G. Kenyon, "English Versions," HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 219-230.)

Item 1. English Manuscript Bibles.

Summary. Of the earliest English manuscript Bibles there may be named, each more or less fragmentary and partial translations, Caedmon, Bede, Alfred the Great, with his English translations of the Decalogue, the summary of the Mosaic law, and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem, which he prefixed to his own code of laws; the Lindisfarne Gospels, AElfric's translation of the Heptateuch, with epitomes of the Book of Kings and brief versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees. During the period of the Conquest, a French version of the Apocalypse was translated into English. Later English versions of the Psalter appeared, the most noteworthy being by Richard Rolle, translated from the Latin (14th century) about which time also appeared a narrative of the Life of Christ made by a rearrangement of the Gospels. Finally the Wyclif Bible appeared (about 1380), an English translation of the Latin Vulgate—the first complete translation of the Old and New Testaments.

We may pass with mere mention the early more or less fragmentary and partial translations of parts of the Bible by Caedmon (7th century), a manuscript; Bede (d. 735), a manuscript; Alfred the Great (849-901), who, to his code of laws, prefixed English translations of the Decalogue, a summary of the Mosaic law, and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23-29).

Then came the Lindisfarne Gospels (in Northumbrian and Mercian dialects),—"the earliest extant translation of the Gospels into English," which were followed in the tenth century by a translation by AElfric (about 990) of the Heptateuch, and "homilies containing epitomes of the Books of Kings and Job, and brief versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees," which are the "earliest extant English version of the narrative books of the OT." During the period of the Norman Conquest, the biblical literature was mainly in French. A French version of the Apocalypse was translated into English, one version of which appeared later in the Wyclif Bible. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 220b.)

The French versions largely disappeared in England in the 14th century, during which period two English versions of the Psalter appeared, the more noteworthy being by Richard Rolle (d. 1349), hermit of Hampole, in Yorkshire, translated from the Latin, the English following the Latin verse by verse. During this same century, an English narrative of the Life of Christ appeared, made up of a rearrangement of the Gospels. Another incomplete translation appeared about the same time. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 220b, 221a.)

This, in summary, brings us to the Wyclif Bible, the first English translation of the complete Old Testament and New Testament,—the New Testament was translated first (about 1380), presumably by Wyclif himself, the Old Testament between 1382 and 1384, supposedly by Nicholas Hereford. It appeared in various editions so as to appeal to all classes of people. A second version of Wyclif's Bible was published after his death, in which the English text (clearly based on the first Wyclif version), was revised and cured of many defects. Its authorship is unknown, though some have ascribed it to John Purvey. This version had a wide circulation among the high and the low. "Copies are still in existence which formerly had for owners Henry VI., Henry VII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth." (A Catholic writer has sought to disprove that Wyclif translated a version of the Bible, but Dr. Kenyon seems effectively to dispose of that writer's claim.) Wyclif's translation was of the Latin Vulgate; he does not seem to have had either Hebrew or Greek texts. Wyclif's Bible was the last English Manuscript Bible. All the foregoing translations were made from the Latin Vulgate, and seemingly all were manuscripts. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 219-223b; see also, Kenyon, Our Bible, pp. 194-209; The Story, pp. 47 ff.)

Item 2. The Printed Bible.

Sub-item a. Tindale's Bible, the First English Bible Translated from Greek, 1526.

Summary. Tindale's Bible, the first English Bible translated from Greek; first English Bible printed (1526). He also translated the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Tindale was finally seized, brought to trial, condemned, strangled, and burnt at the stake.

In 1526 the first regular English version of the Bible was printed. This marked the beginning of a new era of English versions. This was Tindale's translation. The first printed edition appeared in 1526. With the vicissitudes, hardships, and persecutions that were attendant upon Tindale and his translations and printing labors, inflicted by those opposing the Reformation, we are not here concerned. He was finally seized, brought to trial, condemned, strangled, and burnt at the stake, October 6, 1536. (See John Fox, Book of Martyrs, Charles A. Goodrich, ed. (Edwin Hunt, Middletown, 1833), pp. 258 ff.)

Several editions of his Bible were printed, the finally completed work, in 1535. The translation seems to have been a good one as shown by the considerable use made of it in the Authorized Version (A.V.). It is said that Tindale's Bible . . .

". . . was the first English printed NT; it laid the foundations, and much more than the foundations, of the AV of 1611; it set on foot the movement which went forward without a break until it culminated in the production of that AV; and it was the first English Bible that was translated directly from the original language. All the English manuscript Bibles were translations from the Vulgate; but Tindale's NT was taken from the Greek, which he knew from the editions by Erasmus, published in 1516, 1519, and 1522. As subsidiary aids he employed the Latin version attached by Erasmus to his Greek text, Luther's German translation of 1522, and the Vulgate; but it has been made abundantly clear that he exercised independent judgment in his use of these materials, and was by no means a slavish copier of Luther." (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 223b.)

Tindale also printed in 1530, an English translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. In 1531 he printed an English translation of the Book of Jonah.

Sub-item b. Coverdale's Bible, 1535.

Summary. Printed 1535. Dedicated to Henry VIII. Rearranged books of the Bible.

Coverdale's Bible was printed in 1535. It was the first complete English Bible produced, Tindale's Bible being composed of the New Testament and some portions of the Old Testament as noted above. Coverdale and Tindale are supposed to have been associated in Tindale's translation of the Pentateuch. Coverdale worked under the patronage of Cromwell. The Bible was dedicated to Henry VIII, who had condemned Tindale's Bible. In his version of Tindale's work, Coverdale used the Zurich German Bible of Zwingli, a Latin version of Pagninus, the Vulgate, and Luther's translation. He seems to have made little use of Greek or Hebrew texts.

Coverdale's Bible is said to be "epoch-making" because of his rearranging of the Books of the Bible. In the Vulgate, circulating in the West, and (contrary to the opinion of Jerome, its translator), the books of the Apocrypha were interspersed among the other books of the Old Testament. This was true also of the LXX (Septuagint). Wyclif's Bible (a translation of the Vulgate) followed the same arrangement. Luther placed the Apocrypha apart in his translation and likewise separated Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse in the New Testament. In his table of contents, Tindale followed Luther's arrangement. Coverdale arranged his Old Testament books into five parts, and added the New Testament. "So far as concerns the English Bible, Coverdale's example was decisive," in relation to the matter of framing the canon. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 224-225a.)

Sub-item c. Matthew's Bible, 1537.

Summary. Matthew's Bible appeared in 1537. Largely made up of portions of Tindale's and Coverdale's Bibles, except that the historical books were new translations, translator unknown. No such person known as Thomas Matthew, the supposed translator; translation accredited by tradition to John Rogers.

Matthew's Bible appeared in 1537, the year of Coverdale's second edition. Like Coverdale's translation, the title page recited that it was printed with the King's "lycence." It was largely made of portions of Tindale's translation and of Coverdale's, though the historical books were in great part a new translation, the origin thereof being unknown. While the title page says the translation was by one Thomas Matthew, yet no such person is known and the work is accredited, by tradition, to John Rogers. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 225.)

Sub-item d. Taverner's Bible, 1539.

Summary. Taverner's Bible, based on Matthew's Bible.

Taverner's Bible (1539) was based upon Matthew's Bible. Some verbal corrections, to make better English, were made in the Old Testament, and Taverner, being a good Greek scholar, revised some of the New Testament text in accordance with the reading of the Greek text. This Bible is said to have had "no influence" on the development of an acceptable English Bible. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 225.)

Sub-item e. The Great Bible, 1539-1541.

Summary. A complete revision of Matthew's Bible by Coverdale (1539-1541). Thomas Cromwell (Earl of Essex) declared that a copy should be set up in every parish church; it thus became "the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use."

At the invitation of Thomas Cromwell (Earl of Essex) and Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury), Coverdale undertook a complete revision of Matthew's Bible that, apparently, had not been so successful as they wished. This revision was ready in 1538, printed in 1539. Cromwell issued "an injunction" that a copy should be set up in every parish church. It thus became "the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use." The translation is said to have had considerable merit. Coverdale, while not equal to Tindale in scholarship, still had scholarship enough "to choose and follow the best authorities." Taking Tindale's translation and his own previous version, he revised these texts with reference to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, with special assistance in the Old Testament from the superior Latin translation by Sebastian Munster. In the New Testament he used Erasmus. He retained familiar Latin phrases, and introduced a considerable number of words and sentences from the Vulgate, not found in the Hebrew or Greek.

The first edition being rapidly exhausted, a second edition was issued which is sometimes known as Cranmer's Bible, because he wrote the prologue appearing therein.

Henry VIII in his later years reacted against Protestantism. In 1543 a proclamation was issued against Tindale's and in 1546 against Coverdale's Bible. And some were destroyed. At Henry's death (1547) new editions were issued of Tindale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and the Great Bible. Following Mary's accession to the throne (1553), all circulation of English translations was stopped. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 225-226a.)

Sub-item f. The Geneva Bible, 1557-1560.

Summary. The Geneva Bible by W. Whittingham (1557). First version printed in Roman type and in which the text was divided into verses. Besides Whittingham, Thomas Sampson and A. Gilby participated in the work. It became the Bible of the Puritans.

Geneva had become the "rallying place of the more advanced members of the Protestant party in exile." They fell under the strong rule of Calvin. There his relative, W. Whittingham, "a Fellow of All Soul's College, Oxford, and subsequently dean of Durham," published in 1557 a small octavo volume of the New Testament. It was the first version printed in Roman type and in which the text was divided into verses (following R. Stephanus in his Graeco-Latin text).

The translator stated he had used in his work the "original Greek" and translations into other tongues. Calvin wrote a preface.

It was at once made the basis of a revised version of both Testaments by a group of Puritan scholars. The details of the work are not recorded. Among those participating besides Whittingham, were Thomas Sampson (at one time dean of Chichester, later dean of Christ Church), and A. Gilby (of Christ's College). The complete Bible was put upon the market in 1560. The New Testament had been considerably revised. The Psalter was added in 1559. The type and verse-division followed Whittingham's 1557 version.

The revisers of Whittingham's text made the Great Bible their basis for the Old Testament and Matthew's Bible for the New Testament. They also used the Latin Bible of Leo Juda (1544) and Pagninus (1527). They also consulted the scholars, including Calvin and Beza, the latter's "reputation stood highest among all the Biblical scholars of the age." There were copious marginal notes.

This version was very popular and was, for a century, the Bible of the people. During the Civil War in Britain this was the Bible of the Puritans. It is said over 160 editions were issued. Laurence Tomson made a revision of the New Testament in 1576, which became popular and was sometimes bound in with the Genevan Old Testament. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), pp. 226b-227a.)

Sub-item g. The Bishops' Bible, 1568.

Summary. The Geneva Bible being a Puritan Bible, the Church of England prelates desired their own Bible. This was made by the Episcopal Bishops under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Great Bible was to be taken as a basis. It supplanted the Great Bible as the official version, and was so used till the King James Version.

The Geneva Bible, as indicated, was essentially a Puritan Bible. It naturally was not much favored by the clergy of the Church of England. Accordingly, the idea of a Bible translated by the Bishops of the Church was revived. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a new translation of the Bible was undertaken. The Great Bible (1539-1541) was to be taken as the basis for the new version. The Old Testament was indifferently done; the New Testament was much better. The Geneva Bible and other versions were used in the work of translating. It contained notes. The Bishops' Bible supplanted the Great Bible as the official version. Alterations were made in a second edition printed in 1569. A third edition was printed in 1572. This version was used as the official text till the version of 1611 (King James), "of which it formed the immediate basis." (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 227a.)

Sub-item h. The Rheims or Douai Bible, 1582-1609.

Summary. A Catholic version of the Bible in English issued by English Catholic refugees on the continent. It takes its name from the place of translation and issuance.

This was a Catholic version of the Bible in English, issued by English Catholic refugees on the continent who established an English College at Douai. The version was prepared in Douai though the first edition of the New Testament was issued in 1582 from Rheims, a temporary home of the College. It was the work of Gregory Martin, formerly a Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. The Old Testament text was published in 1609. The Latin Vulgate was the basis of this version, little attention being given either to the Hebrew or Greek originals. The style was largely influenced by the Latin. It was used by the Authorized Version translators who took from it many of the Latin words they used. (Kenyon, HDB (Single Vol.), p. 227.)

[lostnfound]

Indeed, the books of the Bible were miraculously preserved, BUT, certain men and churches sure did their best to keep it out of the hands of the common man. For nearly a millenium the N.T. was only written in Latin, a language which the vast majority of believers couldn't understand, or only had a very basic understanding of. They couldn't go home and study the Bible independently, they had to rely on a priest to read it to them, and tell them if their lives were conforming to what was written in it. A lot of attrocities against true believers occured in the name of the "preserving" the faith, and the general body of the church had no way of confirming if what the church in that day was doing was truely in line with the Bible. Inspite of all this there were many genuine believers, and I believe it was because of the Witness of the Spirit ("feelings") they recieved, because of their desire for the Truth, that they were able to come to this knowledge, inspite of man's best efforts to use religion as a source of control.

you are right the catholic church did only teach in latin and try to keep God's word from the people. but those christians who did not follow man's teachings only God perserved his word through there heritage. Yes they were even killed for their faith. They still had access though to God's word.

[lostnfound]

okay i am going to circle this thing..altough interesting topics we could go on and on about..but if lds witness comes to my door are they not going to say pray over the bom to see if it is true? if yes..and they do not know what I believe..why would they not ask me if I 1. I believe bible is true and if i say no..then then say you need to pray over bible and bom to see if its true?

[Hemidakota]

I would have you pray over which church is true and whether or not Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet.

[Jenamarie]

The Book of Mormon proves the Bible true. The Bible also does, but since the LDS church is not the only church that believes it, simply having a witness that the Bible is true is only going to take you a step towards a fullness of Truth. It won't tell you which church has it.

[lostnfound]

I would have you pray over which church is true and whether or not Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet.

okay hemi..since you have the different answer then i have ever heard. what do you say to me if I say I prayed about that sought it all out..and the answer was that it is not true?

[Hemidakota]

Then that is your answer....long as you know it was confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

[KosherXMorg]

The Book of Mormon proves the Bible true. The Bible also does, but since the LDS church is not the only church that believes it, simply having a witness that the Bible is true is only going to take you a step towards a fullness of Truth. It won't tell you which church has it.

Ah, but Jenamarie, the same is true for the Book of Mormon. Having a witness that the Book of Mormon is true is a step-forward but it doesn't prove the LDS church is true, because it is not the only church that has it.

[Jenamarie]

I do stand corrected Kosher. :) I guess since I don't have any regular contact with those other churches (there aren't any congregations that I know of in my general area) I sometimes forget about them.

The thing to do then, for someone who is seeking, is to pray about the Book of Mormon, and then pray about the church that presented it to you. :)

[VisionOfLehi]

I'm sorry, lostnfound, but I looked up Josephus and his claims on Jesus are disputed, and their validity has been questioned for a few hundred years now. And, the man wasn't even born until 37 AD, at least 3 or 4 years after the DEATH of Christ, so anything he wrote would not have been a first-hand account anyway.

I imagine similar doubts exist around all of the material you quoted as proof of Christ walking on earth. Was ANYTHING written while he was ALIVE?

You'd think someone would have noticed the multitudes he preached to, whether they were Jewish or Roman or what, and written about it. I don't believe there's any such thing, though. It's all back-written.

Edit:

No, I do not doubt Christ or His existence, however I was a staunch agnostic who saw that there was a great LACK of any physical or historical evidence that Christ actually walked the earth, as the Scriptures teach, and that it's all based on these books written after his purported death... And books which have had 2,000 years to be altered in whatever manner translators and scholars saw fit.

No, there is nothing in history that could conclusively and logically lead me to believe in Christ, that the Messiah had come.

I rely upon the witness of the Holy Ghost

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

[lostnfound]

I'm sorry, lostnfound, but I looked up Josephus and his claims on Jesus are disputed, and their validity has been questioned for a few hundred years now. And, the man wasn't even born until 37 AD, at least 3 or 4 years after the DEATH of Christ, so anything he wrote would not have been a first-hand account anyway.

I imagine similar doubts exist around all of the material you quoted as proof of Christ walking on earth. Was ANYTHING written while he was ALIVE?

You'd think someone would have noticed the multitudes he preached to, whether they were Jewish or Roman or what, and written about it. I don't believe there's any such thing, though. It's all back-written.

Edit:

No, I do not doubt Christ or His existence, however I was a staunch agnostic who saw that there was a great LACK of any physical or historical evidence that Christ actually walked the earth, as the Scriptures teach, and that it's all based on these books written after his purported death... And books which have had 2,000 years to be altered in whatever manner translators and scholars saw fit.

No, there is nothing in history that could conclusively and logically lead me to believe in Christ, that the Messiah had come.

I rely upon the witness of the Holy Ghost

hmm was anthing written while he was alive?? can you count the first hand accounts of people that saw him..paul etc..or i guess you still want others outside of bible...let me look.

I would imagine you would find all kinds of conflicting information out there on everyone of those guys. Check witht the smithosion and their research department.

[lostnfound]

something did occur to me their is archelogical evidence of tombs with his family tree on them. Would that suffice?

[lostnfound]

Then that is your answer....long as you know it was confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

Hemi, really?!!!! I am confused. Is it your opinion that some can believe it's true confirmed by the holy spirit and others can believe it's not true confirmed by the holy spirit?

God can contridict himself? Is there anybody else that thinks like this?

[lostnfound]

CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002

interesting archeological evidence..Was it' jesus's brother?

[lostnfound]

one more thought lehi..why do we need to go outside the bible for proof of jesus anyway? 40 authors 2,000 years apart from each other and 3 different languages...all saying the same thing with consistency. Prophecies were fulfilled and over 300 of them just pertaining to christ alone. These writings were real people, real places, real wars etc...To examine the evidence of the bible alone is overwhelming.

[skalenfehl]

It might very well be.

"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."

While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life..."

[lostnfound]

CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002

interesting archeological evidence..Was it' jesus's brother?

It might very well be.

"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."

While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life..."

well.there are even people out there that would say the holocaust did even exist. Idiots in my opinion...sorry...if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..guess what it is a duck. lol..Jesus has been a central figure throughout history...from believers to non believers.

[skalenfehl]

one more thought lehi..why do we need to go outside the bible for proof of jesus anyway? 40 authors 2,000 years apart from each other and 3 different languages...all saying the same thing with consistency. Prophecies were fulfilled and over 300 of them just pertaining to christ alone. These writings were real people, real places, real wars etc...To examine the evidence of the bible alone is overwhelming.

It boils down to this. We believe that a very important part of salvation is the authority to baptize. Jesus Christ called his apostles and gave them the authority to act in His name, going out into the world and baptizing in His name. This is key for us. The authority cannot be found in all the churches that conflict with one another. This was one of Martin Luther's serious concerns. God is not a God of confusion. If it didn't matter which of the many religions, if any, had the authority or if the authority was not necessary, then why not be baptized by just anyone who decided to start their own church? This is the key reason. Authority to act in God's name to perform ordinances essential for salvation. The Bible cannot point to us where this authority is found. The Book of Mormon does. That is our message.

[lostnfound]

It boils down to this. We believe that a very important part of salvation is the authority to baptize. Jesus Christ called his apostles and gave them the authority to act in His name, going out into the world and baptizing in His name. This is key for us. The authority cannot be found in all the churches that conflict with one another. This was one of Martin Luther's serious concerns. God is not a God of confusion. If it didn't matter which of the many religions, if any, had the authority or if the authority was not necessary, then why not be baptized by just anyone who decided to start their own church? This is the key reason. Authority to act in God's name to perform ordinances essential for salvation. The Bible cannot point to us where this authority is found. The Book of Mormon does. That is our message.

that would be a great thread too..oh man lots of good thoughts came out my one question.

[skalenfehl]

John 3: 3, 5

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

• • •

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.