>Masoretic Text
>Leningrad Codex
>Aleppo Codex
>Dead Sea Scrolls
>Septuagint
>Codex Sinaiticus
>Codex Vaticanus
>Textus Receptus
So which ancient manuscript is the correct one to translate Bibles from?
Corinthians 14:33
>For God is not the author of confusion
Dead Sea scrolls
Church already decided which one
Which church?
They all use different manuscript translations. KJV, NIV, ESV
For old testament use a combination of all with in order of precedence: septuagint, new testament quotes, dead sea scrolls, (((masoretic text)))
Septuagint is a greek translation from hebrew that includes the Apocrypha. Why is it accepted as legitimate at all?
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of course
Because it's the first written ot we have and jesus and the apostles quoted from it. The church has always used it. If it's good enough for jesus the apostles and the church then it's good enough for us
So they quoted from it, but church denied from it the Apocrypha?
Also there is no original Septuagint. Its said the original was only the 5 books of moses by 72 jewish scribes.
How do you know it hasn't been changed or added onto from the original that was burned in the library of Alexandria?
The church doesn't recognise the term apocrypha, all books in it are canonical. People made copies of the septuagint. The greek churches have preserved and always used the septuagint throughout the ages.
We know the text is most likely uncorrupted due to oral tradition passing it down too which is very reliable.
It also matches up more closely with our oldest large body of Old Testament writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, better than the Masoretic Hebrew does.
top kek what a cuck
enjoy burning in the accursed pocket dimension of the dark imposter god
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
Why does Jesus refer to Hebrew jots and tittles if he is talking about the greek Septuagint?
Or did Jesus read the Masoretic text and the writers of the NT read the Septuagint?
>jewish god is not the god of confusion
stop worshiping a merchant on a stick
It's an issue of translation. The greek in that passage of the New Testament uses "iota," the greek letter, not jot. Some translators assumed, and still do assume, that Jesus must have been referring to the smallest Hebrew letter instead and that the gospel account of that quotation was effectively a transliteration.
Septuagint is older than dead sea scrolls btw
>Also there is no original Septuagint. Its said the original was only the 5 books of moses by 72 jewish scribes.
There's no "orginal" of any of these texts or manuscripts. The fact is that what we have from the septuagint predates the earliest Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts by something like 800 years or more.
The likely date of its composition is, but if I remember correctly the earliest surviving fragments or copies are not.
Ah my bad i didn't realise you meant the physical originals
Says the follower of the satanic degenerate false prophet, God won't have piety for ultimate sinners of your kind.
No worries. It's amazing the bias that's still given to the Masoretic Hebrew by most translations. It's one of my sore point with the ESV, an otherwise good translation, in that in relies on the Critical Text for the New Testament but then bizarrely relies on the Masoretic Hebrew for its OT. . .
Which version of the bible should I own/read/study? I saw a video posted last night about some talk regarding the KJV being the most authentic(whatever that means) but was curious what some here though. Happy mother's day all.
Really makes you think (((who))) started and guided the (((reformation)))
>it's a biblical linguistics thread
Nice
Get the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB). It's translated from the patriarchal text by the orthodox community in america. It is sublime and the most accurate.
For old testament probably get the orthodox study bible.
This is actually a pretty complicated subject but here's a decent rundown of what you need to know to get started:
1. Most translations don't radically differ from one to another unless it's some strange version put out by a cult group like the New World Translation. Yes, you'll see some differences but it's mainly one in translation philosophy, which leads me to. . . .
2. What do you want out of a translation? Translations are usually categorized based on two factors: A) translation style or philosophy and B) manuscript sources. There are usually two translation styles: Formal Equivalence or "word for word," and Dynamic Equivalence or "thought for thought." There are pros and cons to both. A "word for word" approach tends to contain less of an authors own interpretation of the text (as any act of translation involves a certain amount of interpretation) but can result in passages that are difficult to read and ruin the sense of the text. "Thought for thought" translations tend to be smoother reads but often veer too far into the realm of paraphrase and its easy for people with an agenda to slip in political correctness into the text.
As an example of all this gibberish, the KJV that you mentioned, for point A) tries to be as "word for word" in its translation philosophy as possible, which it does rather admirably. However, the only downside is that the english is that of the early 17th century; thus, the syntax can be hard to follow and some of the vocabulary is so far out of date as to essentially be a foreign language for most people. It's classic translation though and people should be familiar with it if anything for its literary and cultural significance.
For point B) the KJV relies off a manuscript tradition that largely originates from the old Byzantine empire, which date from roughly the 12th century (IIRC), as opposed to the newer body of evidence that's been discovered which date as far back as the 4th century.
(Part 1)
What's the best resource for learning Aramaic? I want to learn it so I could learn the various dialects such as Nabatean(Petra is tight as fuck bro) and possibly biblical Aramaic
Thank you for the input, I will check both of them out.
cont
All that being said, what are your best options?
If you want the best "word for word" translations, with the oldest and best manuscript evidence:
The New American Standard Bible (very word for word, which makes for pretty bland reading) and the English Standard Version (popular among evangelicals, particularly the Reform and Presbyterian crowd, but oddly ignores the oldest and best evidence in the Old Testament books) are your best choices.
If you want the best "thought for thought" translations with the least translator bias/political correctness that rely on the oldest and best manuscripts:
The New Revised Standard Version, particularly the 1st, 2nd, or 4th editions of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible is a good choice. The 3rd edition slipped in some absurd and blatantly misleading and illogical commentary on homosexuality, which the 4th edition corrected. The NRSV tries to play a middle ground between "word for word" and "thought for thought" in its style.
The New Living Translation is a decent choice for a "thought for thought" translation that leans more towards paraphrase (although not the best word choice admittedly).
Hah! But let's be honest, was there any way translators like Luther or Tyndale could have known that the Masoretic Hebrew tradition began well after the Septuagint? Besides, Tyndale did at least make reference to the Septuagint for some passages. I'm not sure about Luther.
The Orthodox Study Bible is a good and affordable suggestion if you want to be sure that you have an Old Testament that only relies on the Septuagint for translation. It's New Testament manuscript tradition doesn't have any surviving copies that date back as far as the current critical edition of the new testament do, but (and the other user can correct me if I'm wrong) the Orthodox Church essentially accepts it as matter of faith that the Orthodox church faithfully preserved the original text and their New Testament faithfully represents that. In their favor, the manuscripts that go back the something like the 7th or 8th century show a remarkable amount of care and detail in the copying.
It's nothing really to get worked up over though. I encourage you to pick from any of the options we've provided you and start reading. The current critical editions of the New Testament and the old Byzantine texts (the one brother Orthodox user mentioned) still agree something like 98% of the time. I can source that if you'd like.
Dont get the Orthodox "Study" Bible
The commentary is absolute cancer. Outright stating Genesis 1 mentions the Trinity by mistranslating Wind as Holy Spirit.
How biased towards the NT and dishonest is that.
>Turkroach
And also claiming because Father YHWH "said" let there be light, that means his "word" is the son Jesus in Genesis. Are you kidding me.
If you want to avoid denomination bias in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, then go with:
The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, by Lancelot Brenton. You can get it for about $30.
While I agree that the commentary in terms of linguistic evidence is over-reaching here, what do you make of the "Let us . . " phrasing? The standard secular and Jewish interpretation of this is that YHWH is speaking to the general heavenly assembly, or divine counsel, or something like that, in a sense that it may be poetic phrasing, but don't you find it a bit odd that God makes a decisions by saying "Let us create. . ." ?
Well they were in communication with the orthodox church yet didn't join it and instead made their own church. They don't really have an excuse
Go away unitarian
The commentary is conforming to the views of the orthodox church. These have been contemplated for 2 millenia. This is not over reaching and I'll take their interpretation of it over this protestant's
I haven't studied their discussions with the Orthodox church extensively but I suspect part of the hang up was the Lutheran and Reform doctrine of Unconditional Election and Predestination.
To be honest, Orthobro, I'm not Orthodox, and there's a lot that I like from them. But I'm confused over their position on free will. Can you explain this to me? I can't accept a pure free will position because the Gospel of St. John, Romans, Ephesians, etc. all clearly shoot that down. I'm not really sure if Calvin's notion of double predestination really makes sense either.
Let me express my concerns this way: Jesus says in John 6 (excuse my from memory quotations) that "No man can come to me unless my Father draw him." And later in the same chapter demonstrates that the reason why some believed and some did not is because, again, "This is why I told you that no man can come to me unless it is given him by my Father." What do the Orthodox make of this? Are all people eventually given a "drawing" God so that they can then act on the gift of faith from God? How does this work in the Orthodox context?
Unitarians may have been the biggest cancer in all of American history. Look for any degenerate, liberal, disruptive, hap-hazard, or violent reactionary movement in US history and you'll find more often than not it was started or led by Unitarians.
I'm not orthodox either but catholic. I can't speak for either on that but the logical response would be to say that a human can't know about god unless god made a sign thus a sign must be made for a human to come to christ. This doesn't deny freewill as god is merely providing evidence of his existence and giving humans the choice to come to him.
To deny free will however is completely illogical. It implies that god created evil not his creations and how can a perfect being create something evil and corrupt? It's a logical impossibility. The only possibility is god created man perfect but gave him free will and man chose to corrupt himself.
I didn't know but it's hardly a surprise. Unitarians are just jews or muslims. A unitarian god is only capable of loving himself and not others this it follows their its disciples only love themselves and are incapable of loving others
The Lutheran and Reform notion of this that pure free will was lost after the fall of man and the corruption of original sin took effect. God didn't create man that way, but the freedom to choose God, in the sense of Justification, not every day decisions, was lost.
What an utterly retarded view. Why would god remove free will from his creation after they were corrupted? Also to remove free will would make them incapable of sinning yet humans still clearly sin. Protestants give me cancer
Woah, woah, brother user. That's not what Lutherans and Reform churches teach. They believe that the curse of original sin, or concupiscence, inclines the will towards sin, making man resistant to go to God for mercy unless God acts to give him the gift of faith, and change the will to be more receptive to God. Not that God removed free will, or that free will was removed in all things or every day choices, such as to kick the dog or treat your neighbord badly.
The core element is that mankind wouldn't seek God to save him unless God worked in him through the Spirit the gift of faith.
Well the catholic view is that man has the knowledge of good and evil written into his conscious thus naturally knows not to sin yet sins because of temptation of the flesh and free will. Man also is natyrally a thiest but because we cut ourselves off from god with the original sin we need signs from god to draw us back to him
On a different note, what version do you prefer to read out of? As a Roman Catholic have you tried learning Latin in order to read the Vulgate or the latest official latin edition? Do you hope to see the Roman church and Orthodox world reunited?
Eastern orthodox Bible is my goto. The orthodox really know how to translate and interpret scripture seeing as it all came from greek! I don't know latin so vulgate is out of bounds for me plus it makes little sense to go from greek to latin to english. I do see orthodoxy and catholicism as a united church but yes i would like to see them share communion again and resolve their differences and not let the gap widen. I don't see them as theologicaly different or opposed though a