Chronology of Major English Bible Translations

Date	Name	Abbreviation	Comments
10th Century AD	West Saxon Gospels	n/a	Earliest surviving English translation. Translated from the Latin version. Contained only the gospels.
11th Century AD	Old English Hexateuch	n/a	Translated from the Latin version. Contained only the Hexateuch, meaning the first six books of the Old Testament (Genesis- Joshua).
11th Century AD	Old English Psalter	n/a	Translated from the Latin version. Contained only the Psalms. Exists in two versions, one in straightforward prose and the other in stylized verse.
14th Century AD	John Wycliffe Bible	WYC	Translated from the Latin Version. First translation of the entire Bible in English.
1526	Tyndale New Testament	Tyndale	Translated by William Tyndale. First translation into English from the Greek text. Contained only the New Testament.
1530	Tyndale Pentateuch	Tyndale	Translated by William Tyndale. First translation into English from the Hebrew text. Contained only the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis-Deuteronomy).
1531	Tyndale Jonah	Tyndale	Translated by William Tyndale. Translated from the Hebrew text. Contained only the book of Jonah.
1535	Coverdale Bible	Coverdale	Translated by Miles Coverdale. First complete Bible in modern English. New Testament was translated from the Greek text, but the Old Testament from Latin and German translations.
1537	Matthew's Bible	Matthew	Translated by John Rogers under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew." Mostly a composite of the work done by Tyndale and Coverdale with minor edits.
1539	The Great Bible	n/a	Primarily translated by Miles Coverdale. First "authorized version," or version sanctioned by the English Crown. Also known as the "Cranmer Bible" and "Whitchurch's Bible."
1560	The Geneva Bible	GNV	First English Bible translated entirely from the original languages. First English Bible translated by a committee. First English Bible to contain verse numbers. First English Bible to contain study notes.
1568	The Bishop's Bible	Bishop	Second authorized version of the English Bible. Went through several substantial revisions.
1611	The King James Version	KJV	Also known as the "Authorized Version" or AV. Supposed to have used the "Bishop's Bible" as its starting point. Reveals much more influence from the "Geneva Bible" instead. Underwent a substantial revision in 1769, where it took the basic form it has today.
1885	The Revised Version	RV	Used the KJV as its starting point and made changes to bring it in line with later manuscript discoveries and linguistic studies.
1901	American Standard Version	ASV	A substantial revision of the RV. Especially known for its consistent use of the name "Jehovah" rather than the title "the LORD" in the Old Testament.
1952	Revised Standard Version	RSV	An often controversial translation, particularly for its rendering of Messianic passages like Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 49:10, among others.
1971	New American Standard Bible	NASB	Used the ASV as its starting point. Considered by many to be the most literal and "word for word" of all the major translations. Underwent a notable update in 1995.
1978	New International Version	NIV	Fresh translation not based on a previous version. Underwent significant revisions in 1984 and 2011.
1982	New King James Version	NKJV	Based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the KJV, but rendered in 20th century English.
1989	New Revised Standard Version	NRSV	A significant update of the RSV. Often used by scholars but still controversial among many churches for the same reasons as its predecessor.
2001	English Standard Version	ESV	Used the RSV as its starting point. Made significant changes based on further manuscript discoveries and corrected many of the RSV's problematic passages, such as Isaiah 7:14.
2004	Holman Christian Standard	HCSB	Fresh translation not based on any previous version. Especially known for its (somewhat inconsistent) use of the name Yahweh rather than the title "the LORD" in the Old Testament.
2006	New English Translation	NET	Fresh translation not based on any previous version. Especially known for its detailed notes on alternative readings in manuscripts and on how they arrived at their textual choices.
2014	Modern English Version	MEV	A contemporary English translation of the same Greek and Hebrew texts used in the KJV.
2017	Christian Standard Bible	CSB	A substantial revision of the HCSB. In most cases, the revisions brought the CSB closer in wording to other modern translations and away from the distinctive phrasing of the HCSB.

A Long Way From Orthodoxy

Do Roman Catholics and Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics honestly think that the way they conduct their services is the way that the Apostles and the early church practiced it? How about reading through the New Testament. Is there anything in the New Testament that suggests that the way they conduct their services, or the way they dress, is even remotely similar to that of the New Testament church? Do they honestly think that any of the Apostles or their direct disciples (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.) wore such fancy garb?

Roman Catholics and Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics have forgotten Scripture (or ignore it) and elevated the traditions of men. Nothing the Roman Catholics or Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics do in their services is even remotely similar to what took place in a New Testament house church or even in a congregational church.

Baptism certainly did not mean you were suddenly cleansed of all sin and automatically a child of God. Nor was there something you could give someone after baptism in order to grant them the Holy Spirit. The bread and wine do not turn into the literal body of Christ, nor did Jesus ever make such an absurd declaration. It was figuratively representative of his body and blood, which is clearly understood by His words. If you commit a sin, your baptism is not tainted or made impure. We are human. We are going to slip up, fall, and sin. The correct response is to get back up, repent (confess to God—not to some priest or whatnot), and try again (with the help of the Holy Spirit).

The beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholics and Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics are so far removed from Scripture and New Testament teachings and practices that it is not even funny in the slightest. Everything they do is for show, much like the proud, arrogant Pharisee standing on the corner praying aloud how he was not like the wretched sinner nearby. It is nothing but pompous haughtiness. God is not impressed with it, nor does He listen to it.

As corrupt and perverse as the Roman Catholic church is in its doctrines and practices, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholic church is just as corrupt, if not more. The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics believe in and practice contemplative prayer, or meditation, and mysticism (that knowledge of spiritual truth can be attained through subjective experience); both of which have no scriptural support whatsoever. They believe that knowledge or truth concerning God and the Scriptures should be derived from some sort of subjective experience, rather than from study and logical inference. Their traditions place heavy emphasis on monasticism (renunciation of worldly pursuits to fulfill spiritual work) and asceticism (abstinence from sensual pleasures to pursue spiritual goals). Much like the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholic church is a cult entrenched in man-made traditions, doctrines of demons, and countless unbiblical errors. Superstition abounds in these two sects.

The practice of church services in the New Testament were simple. Not showy. The services of the Roman Catholics and Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics are anything but simple, and extremely showy. They are nothing more than white-washed tombs. The external looks wonderful and spiritual, but the inside is full of dead men's bones. Spiritual emptiness.

Orthodoxy means to hold to the teachings and practices of Christ Jesus and the Apostles. The New Testament and the early church did nothing that resembles the pompous haughtiness seen practiced today by Roman Catholics and Eastern/Greek Orthodox Catholics. Both these groups are properly labeled as cults because they believe, teach, and practice things that are not biblical in the least. They have incorporated doctrines of demons and traditions of men in with biblical Christianity and thus perverted it. They need to return to the Scriptures and reject all else!

Both these churches might be able to trace their practices back 1000 or 1500 years, but that does not in the least, by any way, shape, or form, mean or suggest that their practices are correct and/or biblical. It simply means they have clung to those errors for that length of time because they were afraid to reform and conform themselves to Scripture, or, worse yet, because they did not want to relinquish the power they have obtained, which is power Jesus would condemn them for if He were here today. He would thrash them the same way He thrashed the Sadducees and Pharisees. In the third century, you can already see the errors creeping into the church, corrupting and perverting it. As the Catholic church gained more power and began to exercise unbiblical and non-Christian control, the more corrupt and perverted it became. Individuals such as "St. Jerome" (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus) had lost sight of the Scriptures and started teaching false doctrine that was contrary to the Word of God.

Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

A Roman Catholic "study Bible" says this:

The Greek heōs does not imply that Joseph and Mary had marital relations following Jesus' birth. This conjuction is often used (translated "to" or "till") to indicate a select period of time, without implying change in the future (2 Sam. 6:23 [LXX]; Jn 9:18; 1 Tim 4:13). Here Matthew emphasizes only that Joseph had no involvement in Mary's pregnancy before Jesus' birth. Mary's perpetual virginity is firmly established in Church tradition. Its doctrinal formulation is traced to the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649 and was reaffirmed in 1968 by Pope Paul VI.

An Eastern Orthodox "study Bible" says this:

The use of the word till does not imply that Joseph had marital relations with Mary after the Savior's birth. In the Bible, this word (sometimes translated as "to") is often used to express a situation that actually continues after the event mentioned (see 28:20; Gn. 8:7; Dt. 34:6; 2Kg 6:23). The witness of the entire Church throughout history is that Mary remained a virgin for life.

Yes. Mary's perpetual virginity is established in church tradition—not in Scripture and certainly not in fact. Church history certainly does not witness to Mary remaining a virgin for life. Show me the writings of any of the Apostles who taught or believed such a thing. Show me the writings of any disciple of any of the Apostles who taught or believed such a thing. Polycarp? Irenaeus?

What does history actually look like?

It was not until the apocryphal work Protogospel of James (c. 150) that the perpetual virginity of Mary was ever mentioned or postulated. Tertullian (160-220) denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. Origen (184-253), however, taught it. In the East, Athanasius (296-373) defended it vehemently. Basil the Great (330-379) accepted it, but did not consider it to be a dogma. In the West, Jovinian (?-405) and Helvidius (340-390) denied the perpetual virginity while Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (347-420), and Augustine (354-430) staunchly defended it. As the church became more perverse in its beliefs and practices, and eventually evolved into the Catholic church, the Lateran Synod is when this tradition became entrenched, later to be clutched to by both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church from the Great Schism of 1054 onward.

The early witness of the early church does not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. Certain Christians began to accept it, from whatever sources of influence, while others rejected it based on the testimony of the Scriptures in Greek. The first appearance of this concept was in an uninspired apocryphal work. Jerome seems to have been the biggest defendant of this error, having condemned Jovinian as a "heretic" not only for speaking against the perpetual virginity of Mary, but also for having praised the excellence of marriage. It was Jerome himself who was the heretic, as Jovinian's argument for marriage was based entirely, and solidly, upon the Scriptures.

"I do you no wrong, Virgin: you have chosen a life of chastity on account of the present distress: you determined on the course in order to be holy in body and spirit: be not proud: you and your married sisters are members of the same Church… Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is… See, the Apostle confesses that as regards virgins he has no commandment of the Lord, and he who had with authority laid down the law respecting husbands and wives, does not dare to command what the Lord has not enjoined. And rightly too. For what is enjoined is commanded, what is commanded must be done, and that which must be done implies punishment if it be not done. For it is useless to order a thing to be done and yet leave the individual free to do it or not do it. If the Lord had commanded virginity He would have seemed to condemn marriage, and to do away with the seed-plot of mankind, of which virginity itself is a growth. If He had cut off the root, how was He to expect fruit ? If the foundations were not first laid, how was He to build the edifice, and put on the roof to cover all ! Excavators toil hard to remove mountains; the bowels of the earth are pierced in the search for gold. And, when the tiny particles, first by the blast of the furnace, then by the hand of the cunning workman have been fashioned into an ornament, men do not call him blessed who has separated the gold from the dross but him who wears the beautiful gold. Do not marvel then if, placed as we are, amid temptations of the flesh and incentives to vice, the angelic life be not exacted of us, but merely recommended. If advice be given, a man is free to proffer obedience; if there be a command, he is a servant bound to compliance."

Jerome, in his blatant ignorance, took an entire book to praise virginity and disparage the state of marriage; that holy state which God in His Holy Word says should be "held in honor among all" (Heb. 13:4). That holy union that is a picture of Christ and His bride, the Church. Why would Jerome disparage something that is a picture of Christ and His Church? Sheer ignorance based on his sources of influence.

According to Scripture, Mary clearly had other children, which strongly implies that she and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus. In Mark, a crowd asks of Jesus, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” (6:3). In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and Your brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) are standing outside, wishing to see You,” Jesus famously answers them: “My mother and My brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). John writes that after Jesus had performed His first miracle in Cana, “He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days” (2:12).

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches attempt to argue that adelphos (ἀδελφὸς) does not merely mean "brothers," but that it can also mean "step-brothers" or "cousins." This was Jerome's argument, but this assertion is false. Regarding Peter and Andrew, they were adelphos (ἀδελφὸς)—brothers. Regarding John and James, they were adelphos (ἀδελφὸς)—brothers. Mary and Martha were adelphe (ἀδελφή)—sisters. The word adelphos (ἀδελφὸς) means "brothers," whether literally or figuratively. The figurative sense is used repeatedly throughout the New Testament in regard to our "brothers" (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) in the church; our "brothers" (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) in Christ. The word for "cousin" (relative, kin) is suggenes (συγγενής), which is what Elizabeth was to Mary.

Jerome argued that these "brothers" were either step-brothers, older sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (of which nothing is mentioned in Scripture), or merely cousins. Throughout the entire birth narrative and childhood narrative, there is never any mention of any other children. So where were these older step-brothers during all of this? The argument for them being step-brothers attempts to use two verses for its support. The first verse: In the upper room were "Mary the mother of Jesus, and . . . His brothers" (Acts 1:14). The argument is that it does not say "her sons," but rather "His brothers." The reason it says "His brothers" is because Jesus is the focus here—not Mary. Jesus is the object. The second verse: On the cross, Jesus looks to John, His disciple, and says, "Behold, your mother!" The argument is that He did not say this to any of His family, but to a complete stranger, implying that she must have been alone. Jesus did not give this responsibility to his brothers because they were not sympathetic to His ministry, nor did they believe in Him, and they likely were not present at the time.

Let us assume these "brothers" were indeed older step-brothers. Even if this were the case, Mary still was not a perpetual virgin. "[Joseph] did not have sexual relations with [Mary] until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:25). Even if you attempt to argue for the word "to" to be translated instead of "until," the word is pointing toward a specific point—the "birth of a Son." Heōs (ἕως) is a conjunction, preposition, and adverb of continuance. The word signifies something that "continues up to a certain time." She remained a virgin "until the time when" she gave birth. After the birth of Christ, she was no longer a virgin because she and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations. To argue that they did not is to create a huge problem, which Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. If Joseph never touched Mary, he would have burned with desire and taken that desire elsewhere, which would have made him an adulterer. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has many holes and creates many problems within the rest of Scripture.

The Greek does not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The writings of the Apostles do not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The writings of the earliest disciples of the Apostles do not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The perpetual virginity of Mary is entrenched solely in the traditions and errors of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Scripture repudiates these very teachings. Anathema upon any heretic who teaches and proclaims this false doctrine!

Concerning Animals

Do animals have souls? Will animals go to Heaven?

The Bible is silent on what happens to animals after they die, but simple logical reasoning from the Scriptures allows us to answer these questions intelligently. Animals do not have souls. Man is set apart from the animals because God breathed His life into him and made him a living soul: "The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). Animals cannot sin. They do not know right from wrong, and because they can commit neither, when they die they do not go to Heaven or Hell. Animals also cannot contemplate life or think about thinking the way man can.

You might love your pets very much, but stop trying to humanize them. Regardless of how much you may love your pets, they are still just animals. They were created with no other purpose other than to glorify God, the same with the cosmos and the depths of the seas. Man is the crown of God's creation. He made us in His image: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). Animals are not.

You Must Be Born Again

by Don Fortner

"You must be born again!" John 3:7

In order for God to save a sinner two things must be done:
God must do something FOR you, and God must do something IN you.

     Redemption is the work of God FOR sinners.

     Regeneration is the work of God IN sinners.

Both are the works of God. Man has nothing more to do with regeneration, than he has to do with redemption.

"You must be born again" because by nature we are fallen, sinful, depraved children of human flesh. All flesh is defiled. All flesh is corrupt. All flesh is sinful. All flesh is condemned. All flesh must die. Unless we are born of the Spirit, we will die in our sins, and our flesh  shall be justly damned.

"You must be born again!"
You can reform your life without the new birth.
You can be baptized without the new birth.
You can join the church, be zealous in religion, teach a Bible class, serve as a deacon or elder; you can even preach with great success without being born again.

"You must be born again" for without the new birth . . .
     you will never enter the kingdom of God,
     you will never be a part of the family of God,
     you will never have eternal life,
     you will never be admitted into the presence of God's glory in the bliss of Heaven.
Only new creatures will enter the New Jerusalem.
Only holy men will walk into the Holy City.
Only Heaven born citizens will possess the bliss of Heaven.

To be born again is to be made new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
In the new birth, God the Holy Spirit gives chosen, redeemed sinners . . .
     a new heart to love God,
     a new will to bow to the rule of Christ,
     a new mind to understand the things of God,
     a new spiritual nature to know, enjoy, and live upon spiritual things,
     new eyes, eyes of faith, with which to see Christ,
     new ears with which to hear His voice,
     new hands, hands of faith, with which to lay hold of Christ and do His will,
     new feet, with which to flee to Christ and walk with Him in the newness of life.

John 3:3, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again!"