I'll do more than that, kland, where truth is involved. I'll narrow down the Sabbath to one day of the week only. I'll narrow down the Christ to one person only, and reject all others who claim to be Christ. I'll narrow down the truth wherever required to filter out known error.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well there are others based on the true text which you can check out..

Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530 - http://faithofgod.org/EnglishC/
Miles Coverdale's Bible 1535 - http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/psalter/
http://www.bible-researcher.com/prayerbook1.html
Matthew's Bible 1537 - http://kyowva.com/bbacks/bibletra.htm
The Great Bible 1539 - http://kyowva.com/bbacks/bibletra.htm
Geneva Bible 1557-1560 - http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commenta...nevaStudyBible/
http://logosresourcepages.org/idx_geneva.htm
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+1&t=gen
The Bishops' Bible 1568 - http://www.sbible.boom.ru/bishop.htm
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=e...=Perform+Search
Webster Bible 1833 - http://www.awmach.org/BWB/dochome.htm
Darby Bible 1884,1890 - http://bible.christiansunite.com/dbyindex.shtml
Young's Literal Translation 1862-1898 - http://www.bible.org/public/youngslt/youngslt.htm
The 21st Century King James Version 1994 - http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...guage=engli sh

Now in 395 AD, Jerome was accused by Pammachius of misrepresenting his thoughts through bad translation. In his response (known as Letter LVII: To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating), Jerome stated, "As, however the letter itself shews that no changes have been made in the sense, that nothing has been added, and that no doctrine has been foisted into it, 'obviously their object is understanding to understand nothing;' and while they desire to arraign another's want of skill, they betray their own."

Jerome was a careful translator, and his words show the care he had in what he did. It can be used when we go to see the versions out there, that no changes have been made in the sense, that nothing has been added, and that no doctrine has been foisted into it.

The question however remains -- what was Jerome's source material?
Did he use the greek manuscripts commissioned by Constantine, which were already "adulterated" but accepted by Rome? He gave the Roman church the Latin Vulgate, but what is this Vulgate based upon?

The Waldenses also had a Bible in the OLD Latin of the common people, but it was based on the Received Text (which was wide spread in Asia Minor, Northern Italy and southern France)

At first it seems Jerome was using the Septuagint but changed which has caused debate to this day. In 390 Jerome began translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, Jerome began at Bethlehem the Latin translation of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew (Hebraica veritas). He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements. He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians in Rome and Alexandria...

•A.D. 390-405 - Saint Jerome translates the Hebrew Bible into Latin and completes the Latin Vulgate manuscript. It includes the 39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books, and 14 Apocrypha books.

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/History-Of-The-Bible.htm


Here is a good explanation which I think comes the closest to the facts..

"There are three stages of Jerome's work of Scripture Translation. The first is during his stay at Rome, a.d. 382-385, when he translated only from the Greek-the New Testament from the Greek mss., and the Book of Psalms from the LXX. The second is the period immediately after his settlement at Bethlehem, when he translated still from the LXX., but marked with obeli and asterisks the passages in which that version differed from the Hebrew: the third from a.d. 390-404, in which he translated directly from the Hebrew."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/e...nd-chaldee.html

Jerome was devotedly committed to the textual criticism of Origen



Henry Swete in his Introduction to Greek documents considerable history of the Bible and of the work of Origen in producing a huge Bible called the hexapla which would have a huge influence on the scriptures that were accepted by the Papacy.

It is difficult to conceive of a codex or series of codices so gigantic as the Hexapla...it would have exhibited at
each opening at least six columns. It would have contained several thousand leaves. It's size discouraging much full document copying. The originals, however,
were long preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were
deposited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pamphilus.

There they were studied by Jerome and The Hexaplaric text receives
his unhesitating support.

The Hexapla as a whole was perhaps too vast to be copied, and copies even of particular books were rarely attempted; yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publication of the fifth column, which contained the revised Septuagint. This idea presented itself to Pamphilus and Eusebius, and the result was the circulation of the Hexaplaric LXX in Palestine during the fourth century.

Quoting from Svete's book:


Now it's true Jerome also conferred with the Rabbis and this gave him a greater understanding of the Hebrew. Thus the Old Testament has less of Origen's influence than the New Testament, as Jerome eventually turned to the Hebrew text.

To me it appears Jerome recognized the problems with the text and changes and tried to go to the original Hebrew but by then had fallen out of favor with Rome by the powers that be for exposing their corruption.

Let me see if can post so more of the changes.