Bible "versions"?
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- 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.
So you agree that simply assuming that either one is correct is unreasonable? If so, apply that to your view regarding more recent English translations. If not, it would be appropriate to withdraw your question.
Thanks, your cut-and-paste articles have nothing to do with some real research. The said translators directly worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls translating them into English. Yes, I think, you have witnesses that were confusing. For Josephus, can be said that he is not a good witness to this too. Your admission of the imperfect LXX is enough that it cannot be standard. Yes, we don't really need to compare them to a confusing one, even the KJV translators knew too full well of the works of the seventy. On the other hand, you haven't give any reasons why KJV is in error just an opinion or statement identifying KJV in its seeming error, or now KJV contradicted itself.Notice that in the DDS book that you posted the only letter in brackets is "F" and the letters "o/u/r" are outside of the brackets. Why? Because there was enough of the word visible to determine that the Hebrew indicated four cubits (not 6). There were some later Septuagint translations that may have said something other than 4 cubits, but they were never excepted as legit.... Hence why in every English translation I've seen (Brenton, ABP, LSV, LEB, etc) reads 4 cubits. Josephus is in agreement on this as well.
David and Goliath: The Height of Goliath
One major variant within the Samuel text is in 1 Samuel 17:4. While both the original Septuagint and Josephus’ writings attributed only four cubits and a span (about 6’9’’) to Goliath’s height, the Masoretic Text recorded Goliath’s height as six cubits (9’). The Septuagint writes, "καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς ἐκ τῆς παρατάξεως τῶν ἀλλοφύλων Γολιὰθ ὄνομα αὐτῶν ἐκ Γέθ, ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς·" The translation of this verse reads, "And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height [was] four cubits and a span.".[7] Furthermore, In Josephus’ account of this story, he writes, "Now there came down a man out of the camp of the Philistines, whose name was Goliath, of the city of Gath, a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness…."[8] However, because the Masoretic Text was written in the original Hebrew language and was considered to be an older copy of the text, scholars used its translation for years, attributing to Goliath a height that surpassed even that of the tallest man ever recorded in medical history.[9]
With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the manuscript containing 1 Samuel 17:4 is found in original Hebrew and can be dated to over 1000 years before the Masoretic Text, the height of Goliath as four cubits and one span is not only a confirmation of the readings in the original Septuagint and in Josephus, but is also a far more reasonable height for a man and not a medical impossibility. As time went on, the ancient narratives became more exaggerated as the passage was copied and recopied many times. Even in later Septuagint manuscripts, Goliath's height is recorded as "five cubits" and in an even later manuscript as "six cubits", exemplifying how ancient narratives were sometimes exaggerated as they were retold and rewritten by narrators or scribes.[10] Perhaps the story of a young and unarmored David defeating a mighty Philistine warrior would have seemed all the more miraculous the taller Goliath was, contributing to an even more heroic image of David as a leader later on in life as he put his faith in God and defeated countless adversaries. With David being a key character in the narrative of Scripture, such exaggeration in the telling of this story is understandable
For the other errors I pointed out, it wasn't just The Septuagint vs KJV (Masoretic Text). Like I mentioned in that post, in multiple situations it is the Masoretic text standing on its own against a combination of the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS and/or Josephus writings.... and after all:
Deuteronomy 19:15
15 `One witness doth not rise against a man for any iniquity, and for any sin, in any sin which he sinneth; by the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses, is a thing established.
and
Matthew 18:16
16 and if he may not hear, take with thee yet one or two, that by the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may stand.
.... So I choose to believe the testimonies that are older and have more witnesses.
For some of the other errors I pointed out, you don't need to compare the KJV to anything. It contradicts itself:
Like I mentioned in that post... in Acts 7:14 you will see Josephs family being 75 people, which is referring to Gen 46:27 and Exo 1:5... The KJV has both of these verses as "70 people". You don't need The Septuagint to see that contradiction.
The KJV says in Exo 12:40 that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. When you add up the ages of Moses' grandfather (who went with Jacob into Egypt), His Father, and the 80 years Moses spent in Egypt.... You don't even get 400 years. The Math doesn't work. This is a KJV error... no Septuagint needed to determine this.
Again, I don't claim that The Septuagint is a perfect translation either... I'm just saying that its illogical to say that the KJV is perfect / without error.
In this, I just assumed you are just new in the Bible version issue. I cannot address more in detail in your assault on the KJV, perhaps your lack the understanding words or phrases like " came out of his loins" ," the house of Jacob", " kindred" etc..
Acts 7:14 in almost if not all English versions of the bible say the same thing as the KJV. You can see them here: https://biblehub.com/acts/7-14.htm
This is the same with Exo. 12:40, even the Brenton Translation of the Septuagint has it so that, you alone is left behind.
I would suggest you have to look in google for some explanations also in favor of the KJV as against those who are not favoring the KJV just like you are doing right now then compare since most of your concerns or issues are also answered and can be read in your next attempt in the google. happy googling...
Its ironic how you're pasting links to BibleHub, yet criticizing others on their "cut and paste articles".... and For like the the forth time, I never claimed that the Septuagint was perfect. I don't have an emotional attachment to any translation, unlike many KJV only-ists. So I'm sure you could point out some errors with Septuagint translations... so could I. I'm just honest enough to admit that these errors exist.
The biggest error I mentioned from the KJV, still nobody has addressed.... and that is time spent in Egypt. Exodus 12:40 is real clear on that being 430 years in the KJV. Can you answer how that's possible???
Galatians 3:16-17
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Paul says it was 430 years between the time Abraham received the promise until the law was given to Moses. Abraham received this promise when he entered Canaan at 75yrs old (Gen 12:3-7). Twenty-five years later... Abraham is 100yrs and Isaac is born (Gen 21:5). Sixty years later, Jacob is born (Gen 25:26). When Jacob was 130 years old that's when all of Israel arrived in Egypt (Gen 47:9).
How about a little math:
After Abraham receives the promise....
+25 years (Isaac is born)
+60 years (Jacob is born)
+130 years (All of Israel arrives in Egypt)
25+60+130=215
So... If Paul says its 430 years from the time Abraham received the promise to the time the law was given.... and it was 215 years between the time the promise was made to the time Israel arrived in Egypt... That means Israel could have only been in Egypt 215 years!
Like I stated in my original post on the topic....
Moses was 80 when they left Egypt (Exo 7:7)... Moses' Father Amram lived to 137 (Exo 6:20).... and Moses' grandfather Kohath lived to 133 (Exo 6:18) who went with Jacob to Egypt (Gen 46:11 and 46:26). You don't even get 430 years when you add up the 80 years that Moses was in Egypt plus the entire life spans of his father and grandfather put together! The math just doesn't work.
The Septuagint, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Josephus (and Paul in Galatians) all attest to the KJV being wrong in Exodus 12:40.
The verse should read: Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, during which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan...
The KJV (Masoretic text) missing Canaan from that verse has ended up spreading a lot of misinformation in church teachings, media and even archaeology.... looking for evidence of people being in a place during a time period they were never there.
The point, i pasted bible hub is to show that i am stating a non bias sources, where, the English versions it provided are the same with the Kjv as in the case of Exo. 12:40. I may ask you, why single out or put the KJV in error when the fact is, all the listed English version in the Bible hub agrees with the Kjv. The contradiction is now actually narrowed and the same you can just google that out for the explanation but for now, i also read some of the explanation pointing not only to the Kjv but the bunch of Emglish versions. Happy googling.
Its the KJV that people have claimed on this thread as being "perfect"..... "without error".... or is the sole translation that is "approved by God", etc.
I didn't single out the KJV, I just responded to those that have. No, the error in Exo 12:40 I mentioned is not limited to the KJV, it goes for all Masoretic Text translations.... but I haven't seen anyone on this thread refer to any other Masoretic translation as having some sort of divinity. If anyone does believe that, then sure... that would be an error in those translations as well.
That is why I don't use Bible hub for any in depth studying. When using electronics, I prefer Esword on the computer and mysword on the phone.
I am listing here all possible links of LXX showing you are in grave error stating the LXX does not in agreement of the KJV in Exodus 12:40. You are stating you have no emotional attachment to it but carelessly you are using it as one of your evidence. You are just showing us nothing. How can I proceed to your Math when you have a need to realize you are wrong in the first place.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf
The New English Translation has 430 years
ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χανααν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα,
Brenton Septuagint as in Bible hub has 430 years and in here next below.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/exodus/12.html
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/
40 And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, four hundred and thirty years.
https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n247/mode/2up
The Interlinear Septuagint has 430 years.
https://biblebento.com/index.html?lxx1i&20.12.1
Interesting discussion from Will K:
'Hi Jim. Somehow I sense you are getting frustrated with your stated position of "only in the originals" and it is slowing dawning on you that you really do not have a complete, inspired and infallible bible to give to anyone. You cannot logically defend your position and so the frustration turns into anger.
I believe this is your statement of faith from your church website, right?
"The Holy Scriptures we teach that the Bible is God's written revelation to man, and thus the 66 books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely INERRANT IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, INFALLIBLE, and God breathed."
Again, you have nothing more than empty air as the foundation of your "holy Scriptures". Why do you mix up present tense verbs like "IS", "constitute" and "IS" again, as though the Scriptures are something that EXIST now, and then take it all away in one fell swoop with four betraying words - "in the original documents"?
Again, isn't this placing your faith in something that you know does not exist? If you were to be honest with yourself and others about your present belief system, you would have to adjust your confession of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture to read more like this:
The Holy Scriptures: "IF the originals HAD BEEN (but they never were) preserved and gathered into a single book making up the 66 book canon, then THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant words of God. We therefore affirm that this hypothetical Bible would have been the inspired and inerrant words of God if the originals hadn't been lost to the ravages of time and in the shuffle of bungling scribes, and you COULD HAVE believed in every word IF it had ever existed, Amen."
Now, THAT would be more in keeping with what most present day Christians REALLY believe about "the bible", isn't it?
What happened to the sovereignty of God in this whole process? Did He or did He not promise to preserve His words in "the book of the LORD"? Did God lie to us? Was He using hyperbole or exaggerating?
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
The stated pratfall position of "only in the originals" makes God a liar and man an unbeliever, or at least an agnostic regarding his belief in "the Scriptures (that) cannot be broken." John 10:35
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15'
-------------------------------------------
Wow! Couldn't have said it better myself...
'Hi Jim. Somehow I sense you are getting frustrated with your stated position of "only in the originals" and it is slowing dawning on you that you really do not have a complete, inspired and infallible bible to give to anyone. You cannot logically defend your position and so the frustration turns into anger.
I believe this is your statement of faith from your church website, right?
"The Holy Scriptures we teach that the Bible is God's written revelation to man, and thus the 66 books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely INERRANT IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, INFALLIBLE, and God breathed."
Again, you have nothing more than empty air as the foundation of your "holy Scriptures". Why do you mix up present tense verbs like "IS", "constitute" and "IS" again, as though the Scriptures are something that EXIST now, and then take it all away in one fell swoop with four betraying words - "in the original documents"?
Again, isn't this placing your faith in something that you know does not exist? If you were to be honest with yourself and others about your present belief system, you would have to adjust your confession of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture to read more like this:
The Holy Scriptures: "IF the originals HAD BEEN (but they never were) preserved and gathered into a single book making up the 66 book canon, then THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant words of God. We therefore affirm that this hypothetical Bible would have been the inspired and inerrant words of God if the originals hadn't been lost to the ravages of time and in the shuffle of bungling scribes, and you COULD HAVE believed in every word IF it had ever existed, Amen."
Now, THAT would be more in keeping with what most present day Christians REALLY believe about "the bible", isn't it?
What happened to the sovereignty of God in this whole process? Did He or did He not promise to preserve His words in "the book of the LORD"? Did God lie to us? Was He using hyperbole or exaggerating?
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
The stated pratfall position of "only in the originals" makes God a liar and man an unbeliever, or at least an agnostic regarding his belief in "the Scriptures (that) cannot be broken." John 10:35
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15'
-------------------------------------------
Wow! Couldn't have said it better myself...
Even If I was in error, that would not determine that I had some sort of emotional attachment to The Septuagint. That would just mean I was wrong. But the reality is, you just misunderstood what I said.... I did not say The Septuagint does not have the phrase 430 years. What I said was, The KJV (and other Masoretic text translations) are missing the phrase "and the land of Canaan". The 430 years is supposed to be a combination of the time spent in Canaan and in Egypt.... not just Egypt.
Malikb, your findings in Exodus 12;40 is not a Bible version issue in their actuality. It's a kind of interpretation issue.
https://brandplucked.webs.com/exodus1240.htm
Well, could I also refer you to the link below where John 146 gave for your question you may not somehow find in the ESword application with tons to download commentaries and bibles for free? Hope you will come to an open mind.
https://brandplucked.webs.com/exodus1240.htm
Since the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, as well as every English translation all have 430 years in this verse, there is no "error" and this is a non-issue.
But anyone who tries to pit the Septuagint against the Masoretic text should understand that it is a CORRUPTED translation into Greek, with numerous blunders and errors. It has a legendary origin, and it incorporates every apocryphal book as though they are all Scripture!
The "430 years" wasn't the problem with the verse... The problem was Masoretic translations missing the phrase "and the land of Canaan".... I already stated that in a different response.
I read the article. Most of it was referring to a different verse talking about the 400 years that someone else was claiming might be a contradiction. I don't have an issue with that other verse. As far as the verse in question (Exo 12:40), it seems to me that whoever wrote the article is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. His argument is the comma placement... and that the commas indicate that the verse is just letting us know that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, but the 430 years is just referring to their sojourning time (which includes Canaan).
The problem I have with this interpretation is...
1. There is nothing to indicate in the Hebrew that the commas belong in those specific places. Where one chooses to place the commas makes a big difference in how a verse reads.
2. The verb "was" is not in the Hebrew. This is why it is written in italics in the verse.
With the comma and the "was" the last half of the verse reads:
...who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Without those it reads:
...who dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years.
It would appear from other Scriptures, that the land of Canaan was not involved at all.
Abraham was told that his descendants would be afflicted for four hundred years in Egypt: And he [God] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years (Gen 15:13). [Note: This would simply be a broad generalization by God]
But then we read in Exodus 12:41 exactly what is stated in Exodus 12:40: And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. [Note: the precision of this statement cannot be avoided. No mention of Canaan]
So what does the Septuagint have to say? And it came to pass after the four hundred and thirty years, all the forces of the Lord came forth out of the land of Egypt by night.
Did you notice that they omitted a critical phrase -- "even the selfsame day" since that would destroy the narrative of including Canaan? They also added "by night" gratuitously. But the Hebrew text is very definite: בְּעֶ֙צֶם֙ bə-‘e-ṣem (on same] הַיּ֣וֹם hay-yō-wm (day) הַזֶּ֔ה haz-zeh (this very) = even the selfsame day. Since "day" is mentioned here, "night" would be an anomaly.
So now it should be clear to all that the LXX corrupted both verses, and what is in the Masoretic Text is the true Hebrew text. Anyone looking to the Septuagint for anything will be deceived.
Even the person in the link that fredoheaven provided agrees that the 430 years includes Canaan. He just believes that Canaan should be inferred because of the comma placement in Exo 4:20. You can go back and do the math yourself... The post is #384.
To make it easier, this video sums it all up:
And I suggest watching this as a follow up:
That's also true of the 1611 KJV.
Wait... I had forgotten that there was one standard by which to assess the KJV and a different standard for everything else.
Totally FALSE. The translators made it perfectly clear that the Apocrypha was NOT Scripture. They did not incorporate it into the OT (as did Jerome in the Latin Vulgate and as found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version and in the LXX). Rather the Apocrypha in the original KJB was a separate section between the Old And New Testaments. It was removed from the KJB a long time ago.
They also made it clear that the LXX had been corrupted. Regarding the Septuagint, the "Translators to the Reader" informed the Christian reader that "...so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy [who composed the LXX] were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the Word, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.
Jerome was quite clear that the Apocrypha did not belong in the OT. But he was over-ruled for political reasons. Here is the Table of Contents for the Septuagint [which is not identical to the Vulgate but shows 12 apocryphal books in red (bolded) as Scripture!]
Septuagint Table of Contents
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Kings I
Kings II
Kings III
Kings IV
Chronicles I
Chronicles II
Ezra I
Esdras
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
III Maccabees
IV Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Esaias
Jeremias
Lamentations
Baruch
Jezekiel
Daniel
Osee
Joel
Amos
Obdias
Jonas
Michaeas
Naum
Ambacum
Sophonias
Aggaeus
Zacharias
Malachias
As usual, you can't simply disagree, but find it necessary to make dogmatic assertions. Again, you would have more credibility if you dialed down the rhetoric. It's like you can't say anything unless you're yelling and demanding agreement.
I note that your evidence also refutes the claim that @fredoheaven made regarding the Septuagint's non-existence prior to the time of Christ. I'll let you two argue that one out.
Yes, I agree. As you so eloquently stated here, it matters not what translation you use. After all, is a person from Mexico City going to hell because they read their bible in Spanish? Of course not!
What I love is that the bible is even translated into Arabic. Praise God!
On a final note, I love the KJV for reading Psalms. The NIV just does not do it justice.
But on the flip side, I enjoy studying from the NET2 online at bible.org. The scholars justify almost every line of scripture and why they chose to translate it the way they did. And the commentary isn't too bad, either.