In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution (Liberal Critics Slam Old Testament)

In John 10:28, Jesus said, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.". We found that the word "never" was actually a triple negative and where the Greek used four words, the English version just translated as "never". In Greek the words were: οὐ μή εἰς αἰών , and really were saying: never, certainly not, not at all, by no means, at any time, at any place, for any purpose, whether male, female or even neuter, forever, perpetually, eternally. WOW! Jesus really meant something, didn't he? That is why I am grateful for multiple translations as well as concordances and lexicons, so we can actually have a real glimpse at the true intent of the words and so we can know, even today, exactly what God wanted us to know.

When reading that passage casually, the one word translation "never" is a simpler, smoother translation, one that lets a modern reader understand the words quickly. However, when you're wondering "did Jesus really mean 'never'", as you said, referring to the original makes the original intent perfectly clear. I've done the same especially with debated passages. Did Jesus really mean . . . ? Almost always, the Greek makes it clear that the KJV translators got it right, and the same is true for more recent non-political translations. It makes me sad though when I read a translation that has tried to be more inclusive and changed the underlying meaning. I don't understand why a sincere person would, rather than accepting the Word of God or even rejecting God's Word, have the nerve to correct God's "mistakes" and update scripture to match what they wish God had said.

I don’t think anything negative here. All of you who a Protestants should not fret either. It was Erasmus of Rotterdam - a Catholic - the one who made the first critical Hebrew edition of the Old Testament.

The edition that Luther used to translate the Bible into German.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Scientific criticism of the Bible has been around a long time. It is useful, and has no bearing on inspiration.

So, rest easy y’all.

-Theo

The problem is that the oldest masoretic text is far newer than either the Greek or the Latin manuscripts that we possess.

And far newer than the LXX.

We know for a fact that Jerome had access to Hebrew manuscripts that are not at present extant. Which needs to be taken into consideration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.