How we got the Bible

Inspiration

What is meant by inspiration?

It means "breathed out" by God
The only occurrence of this word in the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16

But this concept is elsewhere in Scripture such as Matthew 4:4 and 2 Samuel 23:2

1 Corinthians 2:13

Words from the Holy Spirit are words from God and therefore divinely inspired

2 Peter 1:20-21

Prophets were used by God as His mouthpiece
Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Peter 1:10-11

This seems to give further proof that the words the prophets spoke were not ultimately self-initiated

The Bible contains the words of God and of men in the sense that God directed the words without excluding the man from the equation

Combining these verses we find that the Bible is inspired in the sense that Spirit-moved men wrote God-breathed words that are divinely authoritative for Christian faith and practice
Notice that in 2 Timothy 3:16 it is only the writings that are inspired, not the writers

Thus the authority of the Bible is not based on the prophets

On the basis of the Bible being inspired, it is therefore authoritative in our lives
There are 3 theological characteristics of inspiration (note that inspiration in the Biblical sense is not the same as poetic inspiration such as being inspired by a sunset to write a song)

Divine causality

The divine moved the human to write the words of scripture
God revealed the words and the human agent recorded them
Scripture comes from God's mind and only secondarily through humans

Prophetic agency

The human authors were not robots
They wrote with full consciousness and used their own literary styles and vocabulary
God used their unique personalities to convey His words

Written Authority

Words that come from God are by definition authoritative
Written words are seen as permanent and binding
The authority of the Bible does not find its basis in the human authors

To clarify what is meant by inspiration we will look at two similar but different words: revelation and illumination

Revelation is the unveiling of truth
Illumination is the understanding of that truth
Inspiration is the recording of the truth
So revelation comes just before inspiration and the two are similar but not exactly the same
But illumination has nothing to do with inspiration and may come much later and perhaps not even to the original human author
To put it another way, revelation is the fact of God communicating with a human, inspiration is the means God does that, and illumination is the gift of understanding the communication

What is not inspired about our Bibles?

The Bible records many evil and sinful acts which were recorded by inspiration by not acted by inspiration
The inspiration and consequent authority of the Bible does not automatically extend to every copy and translation of the Bible

Only the original texts and perfect copies of them are completely inerrant
Translations and poor copies are inerrant only insofar as they are an accurate reproduction of the original
Later we will see how the original texts have been copied more accurately than any book from the ancient world

The mistakes in the copies are minor and do not affect any major doctrine of Scripture

But to give you an example of the ramifications of what I am saying:

2 Kings 8:26 vs 2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Samuel 10:18 vs 1 Chronicles 19:18
Since both can not be simultaneously true and since it is easy to see how an error could be made in a number since it has no context that would clash with it we do not give this number the full authority of scripture since it may not be the same as the originally inspired autographs

The same is true of a translation

See Romans 3:23-24 is The Passion Translation vs a different translation on hand

Insofar as the translation deviates and is not faithful to the original text to that extent it is not the inspired/inerrant word of God

*Tell about "the adulterer's bible"

Is the structure of the Bible inspired?

The Bible has two major parts: OT and NT

The OT was written hundreds of years prior to the NT
There is great unity between these parts
The OT is currently divided into 4 sections

Law (Pentateuch)
History
Poetry
Prophecy

Major Prophets
Minor Prophets

The NT is divided into 4 sections

Gospels
History
Epistles
Prophecy

Prior to the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX) the OT was divided into 3 sections

The Law (Torah)
The Prophets

Former Prophets
Later Prophets

The Writings

Poetical Books
Five Rolls
Historical Books

The OT was originally only two parts

Zechariah 7:12
Daniel 9:2,6,11,13
Matthew 5:17
Luke 16:31
Luke 24:27

Notice these two categories contain all scripture

The third division might be hinted at in Luke 24:44

Chapters were added by Stephen Langton in 1227
Verses were added by Robert Stephanus in 1551 and 1555
Punctuation was only added in the 6th century
Paragraphs and chapter divisions were also later editions to the original manuscripts

Since the originals don't exist any more, how do we know that the originals were without error?

God cannot lie

Hebrews 6:18
Titus 1:2
John 17:17
Therefore inspiration implies inerrancy
This includes all factual statements in the Bible

John 3:12

When the Bible touch on scientific and historical matters, it does so without error

The Bible is the written Word of God
Since the Bible was breathed out by God who cannot lie, then it must be errorless

Psalm 19:7

The Bible claims to be an utterance of God who cannot make mistakes

"Even though no originals have ever been discovered, neither has anyone ever discovered a fallible autograph that could falsify the claim for infallible autographs"
"What we do have are very accurately copied manuscripts that have been adequately translated into English"
"Hence, for all matters of doctrine and duty, today’s Bible is an adequate representation of the authoritative Word of God"

Even if all current texts have errors in them, we can still figure out what the original says

In fact, the more errors the better in the technical jargon sense of the word
PPT (Y#U HAVE WON 20 MILLION DOLLARS)
So, even though technically only the original text was perfect and errorless, nonetheless, the Bible in our hands today is an accurate copy of it, and it conveys 100 percent of the essential truths of the original text

Biblical Inspiration is verbal and or written

Exodus 24:4
Isaiah 30:8
2 Samuel 23:2
Jeremiah 26:2
1 Corinthians 2:13
Revelation 22:19
Matthew 5:18

All of the Bible is inspired

2 Timothy 3:16
Romans 15:5
NT writers illustrate their belief in the full and complete inspiration of the Old Testament by quoting from every part of the Scriptures as authoritative, including some of its most disputed teachings

The creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-6)
The global flood
The miracle of Jonah and the fish (Matthew 12:39-40)

Inspiration gives authority

John 10:35
Mark 11:17
Matthew 15:3-4
Matthew 22:29
This is even how He resisted satan
Luke 16:17

To be fair, most of these verses are referring to the OT. How do we know that the same applies to the NT?

2 Peter 3:15-16
1 Timothy 5:18

This verse quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as both being Scripture

PPT of views on inspiration

The books differ in vocabulary and style from writer to writer
The Bible makes use of nonbiblical documents such as:

The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13)
The Book of Enoch (Jude 14)
A Greek poet (Acts 17:28)

Jesus' treatment of Scripture

It is divinely authoritative

Matthew 4:4,7,10

It is imperishable

Matthew 5:17-18

It is infallible

John 10:35

It is inerrant

Matthew 22:29
John 17:17
Psalm 19:7

It is historically reliable

Jesus spoke of Adam, Eve, Noah, and Jonah as real historical people
Matthew 24:37-38

It has ultimate supremacy

Matthew 15:3,6

Evidence for the inspiration of the Bible

1 Peter 3:15
Christianity should not be transformed into a purely rational system or be accepted be accepted by faith alone
It is not enough to say that the Bible claims inspiration since the Qur'an does too
Overall arguments

Truth can be known
The opposite of true is false

The famous philosopher Avicenna said anyone who is not convinced of it should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned

It is true that a theistic God exists
If God exists, then miracles are possible
Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God
The New Testament is historically reliable

There is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than for any other book from antiquity

In the New Testament Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh
Many miracles confirmed Jesus’ claim to be God
Therefore, Jesus is God
But whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true
Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God
Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God (and whatever is opposed to it is false)

Other evidences

The resurrection of Christ
Fulfilled prophecies
Inner witness of the Holy Spirit
The transforming ability of the Bible
The unity of the Bible despite being made up of 66 books over around 1500 year and nearly 40 authors
Archaeology confirming the Bible
The supernatural influence of the Bible
The preservation of the Bible despite attempts to eradicate it

None of these pieces of evidence totally prove the Bible as the word of God but they are all evidences, testimonies and witnesses which when put together provide evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt
So, what we have is evidence that demands a verdict. Were we part of a jury called upon for a verdict, based on a comprehensive examination of the claim and alleged credentials of the Bible to be inspired, we would be compelled to vote that the Bible is not guilty of the critics’ charge that it is not the Word of God which it claims to be.

Canonization (Which books belong in the Bible)

Some of the questions we will be asking include:

What about the so-called missing books?
How did the Bible come to have sixty-six books?

Inspiration is the means by which the Bible received its authority; canonization is the process by which the Bible received its acceptance

It is one thing for prophets to receive a message from God but another for that message to be recognized by the people of God.

Just as there is only one occurrence of the word 'inspiration' in the Bible, there is also one occurrence of the word canon

Galatians 6:16
The word canon, which meals norm, standard, rule, etc., can be used in a couple of ways:

The Bible is the canon by which all else is to be judged
The canon is the rule or standard by which a writing was judged to be inspired or authoritative

This is what we will be looking at tonight

What are some inadequate ways to determine canonicity?

Age determines canonicity

Many very old books were not accepted into the canon

Numbers 21:14
Joshua 10:13

Books were received into the canon immediately before they got old

Deuteronomy 31:24-26
Daniel 9:2
2 Peter 3:16

Language determines canonicity

Not all Hebrew or Greek books were added to the canon
Some of the Books contain large sections of Aramaic

Daniel 2:4-7:28
Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26

Agreement with the Torah determines canonicity

The rest of the Bible books were not judged based on their agreement with the law

Rather all books including the Torah were determined by whether they were divinely inspired or not

This view is too broad because it would include many books in agreement with the Pentateuch yet not given by God
This view also does not explain how the Torah came to be canonized

Religious value determines canonicity

St Augustine mistakenly used this to justify accepting the Apocryphal books in the canon
It is not the value of a book that determines its divine authority; it is the divine authority that determines its value

Church authority determines canonicity

The role of God's people is not to determine which books are in the canon but rather to discover which books God determined should be in the canon

Namely those that He had inspired

The church is not the master of the canon but the servant
The church does not regulate the canon, but simply recognizes it

Christian usage determines canonicity

If Christian usage determined canonicity then Pilgrim's Progress and the works of C.S. Lewis should be in the Bible as well
Also perhaps we should get rid of 1 Chronicles and 3 John since they aren't quoted as much

So how is canonicity determined?

By inspiration

The source of a book determines its canonicity
If its words were inspired by God then it should be included, but if it just came from human thought then it should not be included as a sacred book
PPT quote
The canonicity of a book is discovered rather than determined by man
The canonicity of a book is determined by God rather than discovered by Him

Principles for discovering canonicity

Basically, how did God's people recognize inspired books when they saw them and how did they distinguish them from purely human books?
Was it written by a prophet of God?

Does the writing claim divine authorship?

"Thus says the Lord"
Implicit claims of authority "Thou shalt not"

The books of the prophets easily passed this criteria with frequent claims to be speaking God's words "And the Lord said to me", "The word of the Lord came to me", etc.
Other books such as Esther were questioned on this point until it had been demonstrated that God's protection and implied pronouncements were clearly seen in Esther.
The very fact that some canonical books were called into question provides assurance that the believers were discriminating

Unless they were convinced of the divine authority of the book, it was rejected

Did the writer have credentials from God?

The Bible came through Spirit-moved spokespersons known as prophets

2 Peter 1:20–21

Every biblical author had a prophetic gift or function, even if he was not a prophet by occupation

Some made predictions that came to pass
Others had supernatural confirmation (Moses in Exodus 4, 2 Corinthians 12:12)
Hebrews 2:3-4
Called by God rather than men

Galatians 1:1

2 Thessalonians 2:1-2

Notice that books which came from bad sources were rejected

The Bible often warns against false prophets and apostles so it was important that the canon only contain writings from true apostles and prophets

1 Peter 1:1

Only authentic, non-forged documents were accepted into the canon

Did it tell the truth about God, man, etc.?

Any book with factual or doctrinal errors (judged by previous revelations) could not be inspired of God because He can't lie

Acts 17:11
Each added book was judged in light of the previously established Scriptures

1 Kings 22:6-8
Some canonical books were questioned on the basis of this same principle. They asked: Could the letter of James be inspired if it contradicted Paul’s teaching on justification by faith and not by works? Until their essential compatibility was seen, James was questioned by some. Others questioned Jude because of its citation of inauthentic pseudepigraphal books (vv. 9, 14). Once it was understood that Jude’s quotations granted no more authority to those books than Paul’s quotes from the non-Christian poets (see also Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12), then there remained no reason to reject Jude.

Did it possess the life-transforming power of God?

Hebrews 4:12
Some biblical books, such as Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, were questioned because they were thought by some to lack this dynamic edifying power. Once they were convinced that the Song was not sensual but deeply spiritual and that Ecclesiastes was not skeptical and pessimistic but positive and edifying (e.g., 12:9–10), then there remained little doubt as to their canonicity.

Was it received or accepted by the people of God for whom it was originally written?

This test was not foundational as much as it was supportive confirmation
God’s Word given through His prophet and with His truth must be recognized by His people. Later generations of believers sought to verify this fact.
Limits in communication and transportation in ancient times sometimes mandated additional time and effort on the part of later church fathers to determine this recognition. For this reason the full and final recognition by the whole church of the sixty-six books of the canon took many, many years
Moses' books were immediately accepted as were many of the NT books as we have seen earlier
This principle of acceptance led some to question for a time certain biblical books such as 2 and 3 John. Their private nature and limited circulation being what it was, it is understandable that there would be some reluctance to accept them until they were assured that the books were received by the first-century people of God as from the apostle John.
Obviously not everyone accepted them just as when Korah and a group of people rejected Moses and God caused the earth to swallow them up (Numbers 16:33)

The procedure for discovering canonicity

We should not imagine a committee of church fathers with a large pile of books and these five guiding principles before them when we speak of the process of canonization

No committee was commissioned to canonize the Bible.

If the book lacks authority it cannot be from God. But the simple fact that a book claims authority does not make it truly inspired
The most fundamental of the 5 tests was that of prophecy

The OT canon

The OT canon contained two sections: Law and Prophets. And it was complete by the time of Malachi around 400 BCE
The canon consisted of the twenty-two books of the Jewish Torah, referred to consistently as “Law and Prophets.” (Matt. 5:17; Luke 16:16; 24:27)
From the very beginning, the inspired writings were collected by the people of God and revered as sacred and divinely authoritative

Moses’ laws were stored by the ark in the tabernacle of God, beside the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:24–26) and later in the temple (2 Kings 22:8)
Joshua added his words “in the Book of the Law of God … and set it up … by the sanctuary of the LORD” (Josh. 24:26)
Samuel informed the Israelites of the duties of their king “and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD” (1 Sam. 10:25).
This general evidence of a growing collection of prophetic books is confirmed by specific usage of the earlier prophets by later ones

Not every prior book is cited by a later one, but enough are cited to demonstrate that there was a growing collection of divinely authoritative books available to and quoted by subsequent prophets

Rejected books

Pseudepigraphal (the books rejected by all)

Not everything in these pseudepigraphal writings is false
Frequently the origin of these writings was spiritual speculation on something not explicitly covered in canonical Scripture.
PPT

Antilegomena (the books disputed by some)

Of more interest to our study are the books that were originally and ultimately received as canonical but were subjected to rabbinical debate in the process
PPT

Apocrypha (the books accepted by some)

Basically, these books are accepted by Roman Catholics as canonical and rejected in Protestantism and Judaism
PPT

NT canon

What motivated early Christians to establish the canon?

Practical need to know which books should be read in church and quoted as authoritative
Theological need to know what beliefs to accept or reject
Political pressure from Constantine and even prior persecution

Rejected books

All but Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were accepted by all
Pseudepigraphal (the books rejected by all)

By the 9th century Photius listed 280 of them

The Gospel of Thomas

John 2:9-11

All book that contain miracles of Jesus prior to this time were rejected

Antilegomena (the books disputed by some)

Hebrews

Questioned on authorship

James

Questioned on differing with Paul

2 Peter

Questioned on not matching the writing style of 1 Peter

1 Peter 5:12

2 & 3 John

Questioned on being genuine writings (not forgeries)

Jude

Questioned on being genuine writings (not forgeries)

Revelation

Questioned on being internally consistent

Apocrypha (the books accepted by some although almost no one)

The Acts of Paul and Thecla
Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Gospel According to the Hebrews
Etc.

With respect to the extent of the New Testament canon, Christendom has been virtually unanimous, at least since the fourth century

Transmission

Intro

So far we have looked at God's word being recorded and recognized
Transmission deals with how it was copied and translated for future generations
Since this process has been going on for around 2000 years it is fair to examine this process to see how accurately this process has preserved the original texts

Race to write out definition

*Quality difference between OT & NT manuscripts
*We have peace and therefore we can do these things

Can you find the mistake?

Scribes who didn't know the language were usually more accurate

What if I asked Albert to translate Matthew 1:1 for me?

He would need to read Greek
He would need access to these manuscripts
He would need to know details about each manuscript
See PPT on the two current apparatus' used for translation

Game:

Hebrews 1:1

What are some of the ways God spoke to people?

Play telephone game once around

"I still think Nicolas Cage would've made a great Superman"

Ask whether transmission of the Bible is like this game
Next do the same game but in writing

"Minions would look really weird with contacts."

How does the telephone game differ to the transmission of Scripture?

First, the goal of the telephone game is to see how badly the story can get misrepresented, while the goal of New Testament copying was by and large to produce very careful, accurate copies of the original.
Second, in the telephone game there is only one line of transmission, while with the New Testament there are multiple lines of transmission.
Third, one is oral, recited once in another’s ear, while the other is written, copied by a faithful scribe who then would check his or her work or have someone else do it.
Fourth, in the telephone game only the wording of the last person in the line can be checked, while for the New Testament textual critics have access to many of the earlier texts, some going back very close to the time of the autographs.
Fifth, even the ancient scribes had access to earlier texts, and would often check their work against a manuscript that was many generations older than their immediate ancestor. The average papyrus manuscript would last for a century or more. Thus, even a late second-century scribe could have potentially examined the original document he or she was copying.
Summary

This game experiment shows why writing down the words is a great way of communicating accurately

Other advantages include

Precision

How would a sermon differ from a book written based on that sermon?

Permanence

You don't have to rely on someone's memory

Accurate transmission
Authority

*We prefer written contracts to spoken ones because they hold more weight

What materials were used to write on?

Clay tablets

Ezekiel 4:1
Exodus 24:12

Papyrus (scroll)

Revelation 5:1
2 John 12
These things could also be written on metal, leather, etc.

Suppose that Barrhead becomes an ancient city in the future

What materials would future archeologists find our writings on?
Scrolls did not last forever and needed to be copied before they deteriorated

Scholars determine a manuscript’s age by inspecting the materials used, letter size and form, punctuation, text divisions, and some miscellaneous factors (ink, color, etc.)

How was the text duplicated accurately?

Not all manuscripts were created with the same level of care

Synagogue rolls were done professionally by professionals with great care, supervision, and took a long time to make
Private copies were made hastily and did not always take the time to follow very high standards of copying

OT Manuscripts

We have less OT manuscripts than NT ones

Reasons include:

The OT is older
Any manuscript that contained an error (even just one mistake) or was aged beyond use was systematically and religiously destroyed

Why?

Reliability

Archeology
The sacredness and carefulness with which these texts were copied
Comparison between manuscripts

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The major manuscript discovery known as the Dead Sea Scrolls came about in March 1947, when a young Arab boy (Muhammad adh-Dhib) was pursuing a lost goat in the caves seven and one-half miles south of Jericho and a mile west of the Dead Sea. In one of the caves he discovered some jars containing several leather scrolls. Between that time and February 1956, eleven caves containing scrolls and fragments were excavated near Qumran.
It contained the earliest known complete book of the Bible (Isaiah)

When compared to the later manuscripts which were ~1000 years newer it was found that almost nothing had changed
This gives a lot of confidence to us that the copying process was very accurate

Summary

The integrity of the Old Testament text was established primarily by the fidelity of the transmission process, which was later confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls

NT Manuscripts

Whereas the Old Testament had only a few complete manuscripts, all of which were of good quality, the New Testament has many more copies which are of generally poorer quality'
Not only can these manuscripts be compared to each other but also to external sources such as nonbiblical papyruses, books used in synagogues, inscriptions, etc.
Apparently several reliable sources I have read claim that almost every NT verse can be reconstructed from the Church Fathers even if all the scriptures were destroyed

In order to determine whether they quoted it right it is important to see if they were consistent, not part of a cult, etc.

Summary

In addition to the three thousand Greek manuscripts, some two thousand lectionary manuscripts support the text of the New Testament. Besides the nonbiblical literary support for the New Testament from the papyruses, there are numerous ostraca and inscriptions with biblical quotations. And from the early church fathers’ quotations alone, much of the entire New Testament is preserved. In addition to all these witnesses, there are from the second and third centuries numbers of allusions and citations in apocryphal books that give direct testimony to the existence of most of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. In totality, this is a highly significant corroborative witness to the biblical text.

Higher and lower criticism

Higher (historical) criticism

Scrutinizing a Biblical text to see if it is genuine

Due to this kind of criticism some scholars thought that when the Bible told of something miraculous it must by myth and didn't really happen

This type of criticism tends to be destructive in nature

Lower (textual) criticism

Scrutinizing a Biblical text to see if it is authentic
This type of criticism tends to be constructive in nature
Studies

Genuineness

Is a document really written from and when it claims to be?

Authenticity

Is it a trustworthy and credible in what it says both internally and externally

Several lines of evidence make the OT unnecessary to examine too closely in this form of criticism

The few variants existing in these Masoretic manuscripts
The almost literal agreement of most of the Septuagint (LXX) with the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (MT)
The scrupulous rules of the scribes who copied the manuscripts
The similarity of parallel Old Testament passages
Archaeological confirmation of historical details of the text
The agreement, by and large, of the Samaritan Pentateuch
The thousands of Cairo Genezah manuscripts
The phenomenal confirmation of the Hebrew text by the Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) and Documents in the Judean Desert (DJD) discoveries

There are many NT manuscripts as well as variants

Examples of variants

Deuteronomy 32:8

"…sons of God" (RSV)
"…children of Israel" (KJV/ASV) Masoretic Text

Zechariah 12:10

"…look on him whom they have pierced…" (RSV)
"…look on me whom they have pierced…" (KJV/ASV) Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text is preferred here because it makes sense when quoting it to change it to the third person and it is the older text as well

Look at printed passages with doubt as to being original

These details don't make it untrue but rather shed doubt on whether they were part of the original text

Translation

As of September 2016 the full Bible has been translated into 636 languages, the New Testament alone into 1442 languages and Bible portions or stories into 1145 other languages
Definitions

What is translation?

Converting a text into another language

Hebrew -> Latin
Latin -> Hebrew

What is transliteration?

Converting the letters of one language into the corresponding letters of another

A completer transliteration of the Bible would be pointless unless you knew the original language
However, words such as angel, baptize, and evangelize are transliterations

What is a version?

A version is a translation from the original language to any other language (ie. Greek -> English)
A revision or revised version is a tweaked version

What is a paraphrase?

A free or loose translation that conveys the same ideas but in its own words

What is a commentary?

An explanation of Scripture

Why are translations important?

They help spread the Gospel
They keep the beliefs pure

What gives us the right to translate God's word?

Deuteronomy 4:2
Revelation 22:18-19
In Jesus' day the Hebrew Bible had been translated into a Greek translation called the Septuagint along with three other translations

Had translations been wrong Jesus could have easily mentioned that

What language was the NT written in?

Luke 4:14-19

When the OT is quoted in the NT, what language is used?

It is translated (in this case from the Septuagint)

What language were the disciples and Jesus' names?

Hebrew

The NT contains translations of Hebrew to Greek thereby setting a precedent for future translations

There are two main philosophies of translation

Formal equivalence or word-for-word
Functional equivalence or though-for-thought

A brief history of translations

The first translation ever made was written during Nehemiah's rebuilding of the wall and is called the Samaritan Pentateuch

Some don't count it as a translation since it was basically translated into another Hebrew dialect

The Jews produced the Greek Septuagint (LXX) soon after the death of "Alexander the Great" around 300 BC and was completed for sure by 150 BC

Eventually the Jews quit using this translation when Christians began using it as their main OT version
The Septuagint was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles, and the majority of New Testament quotations are taken from the Septuagint directly
It is very literal with the Pentateuch and free with the Writings
Although the Masoretic Text is generally considered the most reliable, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found which predated the Masoretic Text in some cases the DSS and LXX both differ with the MT and therefore the LXX's wording is preferred by some translators in these rare cases

Isaiah 53:11 (NIV, 'light')

Around the time of Christ Targums (Paraphrases with expanded explanations) were written
Between 100 BC and 500 AD the Talmud and Midrash were made which contained commentaries on the OT
The Latin Vulgate of Jerome was the unchallenged (though not only) translation for a thousand years during the Middle Ages

Completed in 405 AD
Around this time there were many translations, some of which were altered to support certain doctrines. Still other believed that the LXX was an inspired translation rather than the Greek or Hebrew

This is why Jerome wrote the Vulgate

Today there are more English translations of the Bible than any other language

Notable Bible Translations

The King James Bible (1611)

In January 1604 James I attended a conference attended by Puritans who had grievances against the church of England
He treated the Puritans with rudeness at the conference until John Reynolds, Puritan President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, raised the question of having an authorized version of the Bible for all parties within the church
The king expressed his support for the translation because it would help him to be rid of the two most popular translations (Geneva and Bishops') and raise his esteem in the eyes of his subjects
The 6 translation teams (each covering certain books) were instructed to follow the text of the Bishops’ Bible unless they found that the translations of Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurche, and Geneva more closely agreed with the original text

That original text was based on few if any of the superior texts of the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries

The so-called Authorized Version was never actually authorized, nor was it actually a version. It was a revision “Appointed to be read in Churches.”
In 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford produced what has come to be the standard edition of the King James Bible. His revisions varied in about 75,000 details from the text of the 1611 edition
It has had minor revisions since as well

English Revised Version (1881)

Because the KJB was not officially authorized by the church or royalty, they wanted an official translation
Advances had also been made in Biblical scholarship including the accumulation of earlier and better manuscripts, archaeological discoveries in the ancient world as a whole, and changes in English society and its language
The ERV (RV) is a revision of the KJB and was much more accurate but was not accepted for several generations due to the altered words and rhythms

American Standard Version (1901)

The name indicates that there had been unauthorized or nonstandard editions published previously
This was a revision of the ERV,RV and KJB

They would look at both and pick what they believed to be the most literally accurate translation
The KJB was prefered unless a 2/3 majority voted for the RV

Unlike the RV, the ASV omits the apocrypha
Lord was changed to Jehovah and Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit
The only times they differed from the strictly literal translation was in the cases of consistency, English idiom, accuracy, marginal treatment of readings from ancient sources, marginal parallel and illustrative passages, as well as paragraph division and punctuation
It is more literal than the KJB but lacks its rhythms and beauty

Next came an emphasis on the format of the Bible
Nave's Topical Bible (1897)

Contains a concordance of over 20,000 topics
You could look up words like 'salvation' or 'sandal' and see all the KJB verses on that topic or containing that word

Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (1913)

Based on the KJB it contained single cross references that pointed you to another verse and that verse in turn pointed you to yet another
There are over 4000 chains in this Bible
Current available editions are based on KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NAS

By the end of the 1900's annotated, reference, and study Bibles were common and came in many forms
There have been multiple Catholic and Jewish translations which we will not focus on tonight unless you have specific questions about a particular translation
The New American Standard Bible (1963)

This is a revision of the ASV
The revision goal was to make it more readable to the contemporary Christian but still be as close as possible to the original languages
Since more manuscripts had been found since the ASV, these too were used in this revision

New International Version (NIV) 1973-1979

This is a translation from the original manuscripts rather than a revision
The translation team had over 100 members from many denominations to try and neutralize bias

They all agreed on the authority and infallibility of the Bible

The goal was to make it easy to read while still being as accurate as possible
In 1996 the same group created the TNIV which was the NIV with a gender-neutral makeover followed by the NIV getting a similar makeover in 2011

In 1997 Focus on the Family and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood among others criticized these changes

New King James Version (NKJV) 1982

This is a sensitive revision of the KJB

Improved manuscripts but only minor changes allowed
Updated English
Some criticize it for:

Not being modern enough
Not being revised enough

Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB (1999–2004)

In 1997 it had become public knowledge that the IBS was preparing a politically correct “inclusive language” revision to make the NIV less accurate but more acceptable to feminists
This translation came as a response to the NIV being under revision as well as its expensive copyright
This translation did not think that word-for-word or thought-for-thought was the best philosophy but rather they would stay literal unless they felt it did not convey the meaning well

English Standard Version (ESV) 2001,2003

Had its roots in the discussion of Focus on the Family in 1997
Included over 100 people
The ESV was more literal and conservative than the RSV which it was based from

Although in 6 instances it is less literal and a couple of those have to do with dropping a masculine word like 'he' or changing man into men (plural)

Amplified Bible (1965, 1987)

Amplified Bibles are like short commentaries as they faithfully present the Scriptures in contemporary language

The Living Bible (1971) NLT (1996,2004)

Using translators from “a broad spectrum of denominations, theological perspectives, and backgrounds within the worldwide Evangelical community
Mild paraphrase

New English Translation (NET) 1999, 2007

Partnered with Bible.org
Contains translators notes, Text-critical notes, study notes, and map notes
Has been contributed to by laymen and is not funded by any special interest group or denomination specifically

The Message (2003)

Paraphrase
Eugene H. Peterson's method is comparable to that of a preacher in the pulpit, who dwells on one thing for a while and then rushes over another, alternatingly serious and jocular, doing whatever it takes to retain the attention of his audience. The version incorporates a number of interesting but peculiar interpretations that can be best described as homiletic.