Bkmk
Thumbs up: The Septuagint/Greek New Testament, Douay-Rheims, and the Peshitta all translated into English or whatnot.
Cool, yeah. Got it. And “ALMA” means virgin in Hebrew.
One of the more interesting discussions I have come across this year is a general skepticism over references to “The Septuagint”. Academicians I am familiar with avoid the use of the term Septuagint since it is an attempt to refer to a body of documents which purport to have come from Jewish scholars in Alexandria Egypt translated at a specific time. It turns out that there are wide disparities between Greek texts of O.T. books which are all ascribed to “The Septuagint”.
It is true that the New Testament writers used Greek texts for around two thirds of their quotations from the Old Testament. Thus, using Old Testament Greek texts is useful, but one must be wary of the conclusion that all ancient Old Testament Greek texts are uniform in content.
Over the past weeks I have been reading some books on this very subject. Fascinating.
Are you aware of any Paleo Hebrew for Psalm 40:6(7) that reads “a body you have prepared?” How much monkey business would attend to altering the characters to read, “my ears you have opened?” Hebrews 10:5 is the only reference to that phrase (”a body I have prepared”), so the surrounding verbiage must be what triggers a concern, since English translations differ so much at that point.
I've known Square Hebrews, and I've known Jivin' Hebrews.
Butt seriously, as the Pamploma bull said...
There are two discussions going on here. The one we see in this thread is among the scholars and students, concerning which texts are the most reliable and why, of which there is a fair amount of understandable controversy.
The other, which is as significant in my own thinking, is the discussion between believers and skeptics. Skeptics love nothing better than to listen to the arguments among the "Bible people" about the Masoretic texts, and the Square Hebrew texts, and the Septuagint translation, and the Peshitta translation, and does the KJV capture the truth of history and prophecy, and does alma really mean virgin, and so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby...
Cause all it does is justify in their minds the unreliability of Scripture as an historical text, a prophetic text, and a divinely-inspired text. And our God-given commission is to bring as many everyday people to Christ as possible (whether "possible" means determinist or free will is irrelevant here), to get them past their skepticism to belief and confession (Romans 10:9), to get them heaven- rather than hellbound.
So how do we get past the scholarly controversies without discounting them, but recognizing that practically any of the above texts can bring people to Christ because it is the living Spirit that draws the unbeliever through the living Word?
Wrong
Obviously, the fewer languages a document has to pass through the closer its final meaning will be with the original intent. Since the Old Testament part of your Bible is translated directly into English from Hebrew, it’s always a good idea to compare a New Testament quote with the Old Testament passage from which it was taken to see what, if any, differences you find. Most of the time the differences are insignificant, but sometimes they can be quite noticeable.
Bookmark
Why was Maccabees removed from the KJV and left out of later translations? It seems it was in the KJV as late as the 1800's then dropped. I've gotten 50 different answers but most make no sense. Everything from saving paper and ink to the British wanting to hide it from the unruly colonists talking revolution. What say you?
Where might I read up on the history of Paleo-Hebrew?
I personally agree that it likely post-dates Moses, but the word “likely” and the phrase “I personally agree” beg for a better foundation.
(I do have some knowledge in the field, but not so much that I would care to have anyone adopting my opinion because it happens to be my opinion).
I presume that Our Lord Himself (and our Lady and St. Joseph when they were working at home together) all received the psalms and recited the Septuagint? This article would seem to support that theory. Thoughts?
Excellent threat to all the Freepers who posted. To those of us interested in textual criticism this was fascinating.
The copying of a Torah scroll is meticulously regulated by Halakhah to insure that each scroll will be a reproduction of the original scroll written by Moses at G-d's dictation. One of the rules is that every new scroll must be copied from an already existing scroll. This means the text of a kosher Sefer Torah goes all the way back.
I bet you're one of those folks who make fun of "rednecks" for thinking the KJV is superior to all other versions.
Israeli Scholars Discover Corrections, Erasures, Revisions in Oldest Biblical Manuscript
Analysis of Leningrad Codex shows that about a millennium ago, there were several different versions of the Bible that evolved over time
Again, the Masoretes were amateurs at best. Oh, but Saul was 1 when he became kimg and ruled for 2 years aling with them not even being able to memorize consonants but yet they could remember vowels though they left parts of the scriptures out. And let’s not forget Psalm 145!
I’m surprised there aren’t crayon marks on the most ancient of Masoretic texts.
Bkmk
Superior?
Compared to WHAT?
DIFFERENT is about all we can accurately say about it, since we have ZERO ‘originals’ to look at.
Because the old testament was written in greek? Ummm..wrong. too many errors in the septuagint.