No major doctrines changed?

Jerome's Vulgate is an excellent piece of work. Sure it has its issues but what translation doesn't?
Personally I think it is of great scholarly and historical value.

As is the Alexandrian LXX. Which is free from the meddling of Rabbi Akiva. And rightly compiles the Genesis genealogies without the Masoretic errors.

Thanks for going over this.

I want to cover the additional text...


All the copies I downloaded had Moffatt's notes included. Here's what it says regarding the passage above:


That clarifies that these verses at one time in history were considered for inclusion and that's why they were bracketed. Moffatt included them for informational purpose only.


That "(b)" designation I thought was curious. so I looked at the entire chapter 16 of Mark.

The canon part of Mark 16 ends at verse 8. "And they fled out of the tomb, for they were seized with terror and beside themselves. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid of — ."

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20, but they are in all Bible translations including KJV.

Moffatt had found that there were two possible endings based on the manuscripts available to him, marked (a) which are verses 9-20, and a shorter one (b) "But they gave Peter and his companions a brief account of all these injunctions. And, after that, Jesus himself sent out by means of them from east to west the sacred and imperishable message of eternal salvation."

So with ending (a), Mark 16 would have 20 verses. With ending (b), Mark 16 would have only 8.

So just like with the previous bracketed verses, it was informational.

I hope this clarifies things!

❧

This is called FAKE NEWS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. When you [ ] bracket something and cast doubt on its authenticity, you might as well expunge it from the Bible.

Kindly purchase a copy of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by John William Burgon for confirmation. He was an outstanding conservative textual scholar of the 19th century who personally collated the Gospels. He was highly respected by F.H.A. Scrivener, who was the leading textual scholar of the time, and actually wrote the text book on textual criticism. Scrivener was vehemently opposed to all the nonsense being pushed by Westcott & Hort.

As to Moffat's "notes" does anybody read notes and footnotes if they are reading a translation? Most people would not bother. In any event Moffat had absolutely no justification for corrupting the text, so if you wish to side with the corrupters you will have to answer for that.

As I had written, he notes the nature of those bracketed verses as have been included at one time or another. For our information.

Maybe I will someday, but I don't need this book just to understand what brackets mean, lol!

Well YOU apparently don't read them, but for Bible study, you're suppose to. And KJV is a translation - you don't read its notes and footnotes??? That's on you.

You're just sore. There's nothing wrong with Moffat's translation - he's very thorough about his notes so that you don't get the wrong idea.

How will you ever figure out what brackets mean? March Madness might help.

So what do you think the oldest version still exists, the version found in the Tanakh or the Septuagint, even though the Tanakh is first hand factual written account?

Agreed 100%

Is that anything like you saying, oh what was it? Jesus was said to have no sin but
what the writer really meant to say was that Jesus did not have the sin nature? .

That was not the only one where you recently attempted to correct what the Scripture writer said and meant.

Amen!

You know, I had to look that up, but I get it now!

You can even print it out from here;



❧

This was probably easy to look up and i just spaced the fact we probably know this stuff.

But I am copying this list for my personal knowledge..Thank You Sir!!

Get off the gas. No one is tampering with scripture. All you had to say is, scripture specifically says, " named". And the scripture says literally, " Goliath, by name".

Both sound correct based on the context. Briefly, Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign during the 42nd year of the dynasty of Omri. The Hebrew idiom in 2 Chronicler does not demand the age as in 1 Samuel 13:1 displays such Hebrew idiom which means “son of one year in his reigning”. 2 Kings is the age of Ahaziah at his ascension, the Chronicle thus used this expression of a son of 42nd year in his reigning is seen to refer to as being a son of the dynasty of Omri which was in its 42nd year.

And why it has been inaccurate for the word "Easter"? and why it must be rendered as "Passover"? Thanks

I see what you did there.

"making a big deal" - Goliath.... giant.....

Thank you for digging into this 2ndTime...!

James Moffatt is a well-respected Biblical scholar, and he also served as a Christian pastor for 16 years. He was on the faculty of three distinguished universities: Oxford, Glasgow, and Union Theological Seminary. James Moffatt | British biblical scholar | Britannica

His translation, like all others, is not perfect, and even Moffatt knew his work wasn't perfect. In "The Preface to the Revised and Final Edition" of his translation, the following observations are made:

"This is great literature and great religious literature, this collection of ancient writings which we call the Bible, and any translator has a deep sense of responsibility as he undertakes to transmit it to modern readers.... Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no discipline is more humbling" (v).

What I appreciate most about Moffatt's translation is his commitment to peer-reviewed scholarship while also doing his best to provide the best literary translation I have read. Is Moffatt's the only translation we should use? Of course not. If I am doing intense Bible Study, my primary resources are the KJV, NKJV, and NIV. However, if I just want to sit down and read the entire book of Phillippians as an example, the Moffatt is my translation of choice. It has great flow and helps me see the book from a beautiful 30,000 ft. perspective.

Yes. Certainly. Hardly any effort is needed. It's much easier than reading the awkward KJV.

In my Bible you can't pass notes by because they are INCLUDED on the page with a clear marker.
They are not commentary but simple translator's notes.


Like this.

25 Now Samuel died, and all Israel assembled and mourned for him; and they buried him at his home in Ramah.
Then David moved down into the Desert of Paran.[a]

Then move your eyes down (same page) and you see.............

Footnotes

1. 1 Samuel 25:1 Hebrew and some Septuagint manuscripts; other Septuagint manuscripts Maon

That English language is a bear sometimes.

With respect to you, you’re completely missing the point. The plain text has a contradiction. John146 refuses to admit this while harping on similar issues in other translations and rejecting comparable explanations. The problem is his persistent hypocrisy.

You presented an "apparent" contradiction in the KJV. I gave you a sound reconciliation.

I presented to you an "apparent" contradiction in the new versions. You fail to give any reconciliation.

That's the story.

What is the reconciliation in 2 Samuel 21:19 in most new versions? I'll wait...