You implied the Puritans played some important role in giving us the great KJB. That's a joke.
The Importance of How to Interpret a Biblical Text
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You implied the Puritans played some important role in giving us the great KJB. That's a joke.
That moment when you realize a translation has become an idol.
How do you the reader define the infallible Word of God despite the many translations and debates over Hebrew/Greek to English accuracy? Or the difference between manuscripts?
I did not expect baloney from you. No one has made the KJB an idol (a silly accusation thrown at people who will not bow to the idols of corrupt bibles). However it is the Word of God which means we are to deal with it as the Word of God..
1. The majority of manuscripts SUPPORT the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. This is very important. The slight variations do not impact the underlying text, and the lectionaries ensure that the traditional text was in fact in use.
2. Those traditional texts in printed form underline the KJB, but NOT the modern bible versions. (This is also true for most Reformation bibles.)
3. A handful of corrupted texts underline the modern bible versions. This is not opinion but fact supported by research.
4. Modern unbelieving critics deliberately chose the corrupt manuscripts and created "critical texts". Were they minions of Satan? Absolutely. Westcott and Hort literally hated the Received Text.
5. The majority of seminaries and bible schools accepted the hoax unquestioningly. There are few professors who know much about lower criticism, which is a highly technical field.
6. Above all there is money to be made by churning out revision after revision after revision, and fooling the general public into thinking that these are "new and improved bibles". Just like laundry detergent. Are we naive enough to think the publishers ignore profits?
7. The general reader ("you the reader") does not know much about any of this, neither do most pastors (who never did their due diligence about modern versions). Ask the average Christian who is Dean Burgon, and he will have no clue.
8. There are serious doctrinal changes in the modern versions which tend to be overlooked. Must one believe the Gospel before being baptized? Absolutely. But Acts 8:37 was expunged (meaning that you do not have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before you are baptized).
9. There was vigorous debate in the 19th century about these changes, but gradually the "establishment" critics won the day, fooled the seminaries, and fooled everyone else.
10. Christians who understand that there is a vicious spiritual battle over the souls of men will see how all this fits together. "YEA HATH GOD SAID?" never disappeared. Both the higher and lower critics worked for the devil to undermine Scripture.
You insult me? Bring it on. You will be judged… and your words will only reflect on you.
I can accept this. The slight variations can easily be noticed. A scribe error, a scribe that repeated certain verses that other manuscripts did not, or the modern knowledge of Hebrew and Greek has led to closer examinations of the manuscripts.
But we can accurately say the Bible is accurate as we have everything God needs us to know. We just tend to muddy up the interpretation or translation.
The Masoretic is undoubtedly corrupt. As usual, one must assemble all of the available fragments, quotes and manuscripts predating Rabbi Akiva. And what one must conclude is that the Septuagint LXX is in fact an accurate translated text for all things OT. Of course all ACCURATE Hebrew texts (non-Masoretic Vorlage Hebrew) that exist are the non-translated master.
My comment wasn't so much directed at a particular version, but the lack of Christ-likeness that has become commonplace throughout various threads.
See this post and those that follow.....
https://christianchat.com/threads/i...d-is-about-6000-years-old.211443/post-5101585
Importantly, these two groups of scrolls show two distinct text types. Those pre-dating 70 AD have a text that agrees with both the LXX and the OT quotations used by Josephus, Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament (NT). In fact, as Professor Horn states, 'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.' These Hebrew and Greek texts existed and were quoted prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. As Professor Horn also points out, that the first group of scrolls 'can be considered to represent the text type for the Hebrew Bible that was circulating during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.' Indeed, in 1953, in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 132, pp.15-26, Frank Cross showed that this first group of manuscripts agreed more with the LXX than with the MT.
https://christianchat.com/threads/i...d-is-about-6000-years-old.211443/post-5101585
Importantly, these two groups of scrolls show two distinct text types. Those pre-dating 70 AD have a text that agrees with both the LXX and the OT quotations used by Josephus, Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament (NT). In fact, as Professor Horn states, 'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.' These Hebrew and Greek texts existed and were quoted prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. As Professor Horn also points out, that the first group of scrolls 'can be considered to represent the text type for the Hebrew Bible that was circulating during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.' Indeed, in 1953, in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 132, pp.15-26, Frank Cross showed that this first group of manuscripts agreed more with the LXX than with the MT.
Scroll down about 1/3 of the way.....
I do not agree with Barry about everything, but he is precisely on target with this.
https://barrysetterfield.org/scriptchron.htm
I do not agree with Barry about everything, but he is precisely on target with this.
https://barrysetterfield.org/scriptchron.htm
Around 2,300 years ago,the Greek-Egyptian emperor Ptolemy ordered the Jewish sages to render the Torah into Greek on two separate occasions. The first time, he had five scholars carry out the translation together. The second time, he assembled 72 scholars, isolated them in separate rooms, and had them prepare their own simultaneous Greek translations. On the 8th of Tevet, all 72 scholars produced identical versions having made the same 13 changes, where they judged that the literal rendition would result in a significant distortion to the intended meaning.
An ancient rabbinic source, Masechet Sofrim, provides an account of the first translation:
Never trust the Greek rendition of the Hebrew because the Greek has no way of using the word to establish the INTENT of the Hebrew.
A Hebrew idiom may not be easily translated into Greek.
An ancient rabbinic source, Masechet Sofrim, provides an account of the first translation:
It happened once that five sages wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy. That day was as terrible for the People of Israel as the day that the Golden Calf was made, because the Torah was unable to be translated adequately.
Upon reading this passage, it seems that the rabbis were extremely hostile to the idea of It seems the rabbis were extremely hostile to the idea translating the Torah – or at least translating it into Greek. It appears that they were concerned the translation would not do justice to the text’s intent, going so far as to compare it to one of the greatest religious abominations in Jewish history.Never trust the Greek rendition of the Hebrew because the Greek has no way of using the word to establish the INTENT of the Hebrew.
A Hebrew idiom may not be easily translated into Greek.
Yeah, adults need to learn how to debate in a professional way.