Bible Versions

JamesThePersian said:

No, the Septuagint contained the Deuterocanonicals even before the Church was formed and it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agreed that the Septuagint (including the Apocrypha) was written before the Christian era. I thought that I stated just that. I was just saying the Septuagint has nothing do with the New Testament. The Christians in Jesus' time may have used it, but they definitely were the ones who composed it.

Perhaps I may have not said that clear enough. :sorry1:

gnostic said:

Yes, I agreed that the Septuagint (including the Apocrypha) was written before the Christian era. I thought that I stated just that. I was just saying the Septuagint has nothing do with the New Testament. The Christians in Jesus' time may have used it, but they definitely were the ones who composed it.

Perhaps I may have not said that clear enough. :sorry1:

Click to expand...

But the LXX and the NT are related. Some of the authors of the NT may have only been familiar with the LXX rather than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, quoting from an LXX version Greek in the NT.

A puzzle, of course, is that when the NT quotes the OT, it matches none of the known versions of the LXX or the Hebrew text that we have today. Several theories have been presented, but we really don't know for sure why the authors of the NT did this or what version (LXX or Hebrew) they were quoting.

Quotes have to be critically reviewed one by one to see if the author may have been more familiar with the Greek or the Hebrew.

angellous_evangellous said:

But the LXX and the NT are related. Some of the authors of the NT may have only been familiar with the LXX rather than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, quoting from an LXX version Greek in the NT.

A puzzle, of course, is that when the NT quotes the OT, it matches none of the known versions of the LXX or the Hebrew text that we have today. Several theories have been presented, but we really don't know for sure why the authors of the NT did this or what version (LXX or Hebrew) they were quoting.

Quotes have to be critically reviewed one by one to see if the author may have been more familiar with the Greek or the Hebrew.

Click to expand...

When the NT quotes the OT it doesn't match completely with any version of the LXX, it's true, but nonetheless it agrees something like 80% of the time with the rendering in the LXX and it is clear that whatever text was used (and there were probably several as it appears that there was no one standard text until later) that it agreed far more closely to the LXX, which was always the standard OT of the Church, than to the MT.

James

may said:

and here is a good translation ,after all if it is the word of God we would want to know what God has got to say

Click to expand...

It certainly seems like that would be the case, but the vast majority of Christians are woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says because they haven't read it, they just take for granted whatever their preacher/priest tells them about it. I've read it cover to cover 3 times, and studied it quite a bit besides. I know what it says, and that's why I don't believe a word of it. Reading the Bible is one of the main reasons I ceased calling myself a Christian.

may said:

many people scoff at the new world translation but this translation actually gets back to the original meanings of the pure word of God , and the reason that many religious leaders of christendom dont like this good translation is because it is the truth , it is a translation that is not clouded by religious traditions. religious leaders like the traditions of man better than the pure word of God. but Jehovahs witnesses stick only to the bible , it is all we need. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
No matter what our circumstances, the Bible contains the direction and counsel that we need. Read it daily.

Click to expand...

I think you know, May, that I do not agree. The NWT mistranslates things quite often, and typically translates difficult verses to fit JW beliefs (Jesus is A god - and Trinitarians are polytheists??, He created all (other) things, etc)

[SIZE=-1]71 The earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint are from Qumran and are dated to the second century BCE. (96–180) not 300 AD[/SIZE]
That's inaccurate. No Septuagint is part of the Qumran findings

Obvioously non cathoics are brought up misinformed,
as may be Catholics in many regards. Unless someone taught u several of your inaccuracies more recently

Scriptually Speaking the Catholic Church as in Roman Catholic Church was the first Cristian church in the sense the Catholic Teachings and celebrations go closley with the teachings of the Apostles...The Catholic Church Follows Jesus teachings.
In some ways. In other, Catholicism deviates from the apostles' teaching (the NT) in several regards, some more minor, some serious

Origins Of Peter as Pope
Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Another foundation no one's able to lay besides that which's laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:11.
Peter's (and Paul's and John's and my) rock is nothing less than the God-man Himself.
You yourselves also as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God throug Jesus Christ. For it's contained in Scripture: "Behold, I lay in Zion a cornerstone, chosen and precious; and he who believes into Him shall by no means be put to shame." To you therefore who believe is the preciousness; but to the unbelieving, "The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner," and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; who stumble at the word...1 Peter 2:5-8.
Peter, like all believes, is a living stone, a littler rock. And his, just like my, revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is also Christ--the very rock upon which He builds

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Peter, like other apostles (Rv 21:14; 1 Cor 3:10; Col 1:25), is also foundational.
Like all other believers, Peter too's built upon, and should build on, Christ uniquely.
As Paul said in 1 Cor 1: Christians shouldn't say I'm of Cephas, I of Paul, I of Apollos, or even I of Christ [in the way of division from other members]

what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church
The "very kepha" to which the Rock (cf 1 Cor 10:4) is kepha's revelation from the living Father that Jesus is His Son

The Bible is litteral, then so are those phrases,
whether a phrase is literal or not depends on its context.
Just as in all human language, speech, and literature

The KJV Replaces The Hebrew word for Priest to elder, following the Oldest Original translation using the most common Word of the time the word meant "Preist"
To the contrary: "presbuteros" in the NT apostles' usage never means "priest."
They had a separate word for priest

Nullifidian said:

It certainly seems like that would be the case, but the vast majority of Christians are woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says because they haven't read it, they just take for granted whatever their preacher/priest tells them about it. I've read it cover to cover 3 times, and studied it quite a bit besides. I know what it says, and that's why I don't believe a word of it. Reading the Bible is one of the main reasons I ceased calling myself a Christian.

Click to expand...

yes it is possible to read the bible many times ,but having an understanding about what the bible really teaches is the thing we need to know . as you will be aware of this bit in the bible ,
The Ethiopian was puzzled by what he was reading. Philip struck up a conversation by asking: "Do you actually know what you are reading?" The Ethiopian replied: "Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?" He then entreated Philip to join him in his chariot.—Acts 8:30, 31. reading without true understanding leaves us without understanding, so we need to go to those who are giving understanding about the bible, and in these last days true knowledge is indeed abundant
"And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant. Daniel 12;4 now in the last days knowledge about the bible and the prophecies in the bible are well along , but we have to be willing to find out who Jehovah is using in these the last days to give us true understanding and Good spiritual food .matthew 24;45-47 that ethiopian was reading Gods word , but he was also willing to be taught by phillip , and then he was ready to get baptised.

may said:

The Ethiopian was puzzled by what he was reading. Philip struck up a conversation by asking: "Do you actually know what you are reading?" The Ethiopian replied: "Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?" He then entreated Philip to join him in his chariot.—Acts 8:30, 31. reading without true understanding leaves us without understanding, so we need to go to those who are giving understanding about the bible, and in these last days true knowledge is indeed abundant

Click to expand...

I am, frankly, stunned that you quote one of the best arguments against sola scriptura to be found in Scripture. Now, one must ask, how do you know that it is your tradition of interpretation that is the correct one? Personally, I'm skeptical of any claim to teach the truth in a body so young and would rather trust what the Church has taught for 2000 years, but I'm interested in hearing your justification for rejecting the old understanding in favour of a new one.

James

JamesThePersian said:

I am, frankly, stunned that you quote one of the best arguments against sola scriptura to be found in Scripture. Now, one must ask, how do you know that it is your tradition of interpretation that is the correct one? Personally, I'm skeptical of any claim to teach the truth in a body so young and would rather trust what the Church has taught for 2000 years, but I'm interested in hearing your justification for rejecting the old understanding in favour of a new one.

James

Click to expand...

there is no rejecting of the old ,it is a case of hanging on to the old , and not being misled to take on manmade doctrines , dont be stunned, the truth has always been around even though the counterfiet has prospered , but in the last days true knowledge will become abundant . DANIEL 12;4 faithfulness to Gods word leads to great blessings especially in the time of the end, yes faithfulness leads to Jesus giving his Slaves lots of good healthy spiritual food . matthew 24;45-47 which inturn they feed to OTHERSHEEP
And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd. JOHN 10;16 THRILLING TIMES INDEED.

Frankly most modern Bible translations are OK. The KJV is not only archaic but also not a very good translation.

kiwimac

JamesThePersian said:

When the NT quotes the OT it doesn't match completely with any version of the LXX, it's true, but nonetheless it agrees something like 80% of the time with the rendering in the LXX and it is clear that whatever text was used (and there were probably several as it appears that there was no one standard text until later) that it agreed far more closely to the LXX, which was always the standard OT of the Church, than to the MT.

James

Click to expand...

I think that this number may not be reliable... someone may have come up with that number simply because the NT is in Greek and so is the LXX. The MT post-dates the NT by several hundred years... and may be a bad comparison. There were several other Greek and Hebrew texts that could serve as sources - many of which we do not even have.

kiwimac said:

Frankly most modern Bible translations are OK. The KJV is not only archaic but also not a very good translation.

kiwimac

Click to expand...

i find that the KJV is clouded by manmade traditions such as the trinity teaching, hellfire,ect but if it was the only bible around then it would have to do i suppose, thankfully there are better translations out there now ,and for many years Jehovahs witness did use the KJV , but they now use a better more accurate translation. and then the cloudyness of the manmade traditions do not cloud the thought.

I grew up on th KJV. I find it helps me to read shakespeare, . When I asked God which translation to use, He told me NASB. I suspect most versions have a few wrinkles in them but I have found them all reliable. As for the Good News Bible, I find that the meaning is sometimes lost in the attempt to simplify. I have seen this often in all translations which try to translate Paraclete as one English word. My feeling is that it takes a phrase to do it justice.

The NWT is an abomination. Literal translation tends to remove the meaning and leave us with gibberish. Not to mention that JW's assiduosly removed most of the references to Jesus as God in the flesh. As for the Jehovah thing, they went absolutely bonkers and substituted the name for Lord whether the context supported such a replacement or not. No wonder JW's get such screwy notions about the Bible.

Raised on the King James and NIV Bibles. King James, while it is to be commended for its poetic nature or its broad influence on literary tradition, it kills the spirit of the times, and language of the text. Heavy on Elizabethan English. British twist on semitic cultures. It also defends dogma, and a certain theology.

The NIV is not a great version either. While it got rid of the Elizabethan English of the King James it promotes an Evangelical theology.

While no one Biblical translation is perfect my favorites are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) with Apocrypha and the Jefferson Bible. Both versions allow the complete freedom of conscience, and they are versions that appeal to a whole range of religious traditions.

I belive any translation with the aprycrohpha to be a valid translation, when books are removed it takes away from the orignial translation....

was the aprycrohpa removed? yes
should it be in a valid translation? YES

If we examine the beautiful engraved title page of the 1611 KJV we see it Simply say " The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old testament, and the New" with no designation separating the "Books called Apocrypha" from the Old Testament. The creators of the 1611 KJV went to great lengths to form a separation between the Old and New testament even placing a special elaborately engraved title page marking the beginning of the New testament. Yet they placed NO SUCH distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the "Apocrypha". Again this show acceptance of these Books as part of the Old Testament.

another example of this is at the wording found at the bottom of the last page of the book of Malachi, [which most Protestants today consider the end of the Old Testament], just before the beginning of the First Esdras, we find the words "The end of the Prophets". As we can see the translators did not designate this as the end of the Old Testament [which they could have], they simply called it the end of the books of the Prophets, a grouping of books of the Old Testament.

which validates that even the old KJV HAd the apycropha, so if you want a closley translated valid bible, then choose a bible with the apycropha, again a favorite of mine is The New American Bible version by ST. James

may said:

i find that the KJV is clouded by manmade traditions such as the trinity teaching, hellfire,ect but if it was the only bible around then it would have to do i suppose

Click to expand...

There were other Bible translations around before the 1960s, yet JWs clung to the KJV until then, even in spite of its "manmade" doctrines (which I geuss they didn't have a problem with for the first 100 years of their existence? )

Muffled said:

I grew up on th KJV. I find it helps me to read shakespeare, . When I asked God which translation to use, He told me NASB. I suspect most versions have a few wrinkles in them but I have found them all reliable. As for the Good News Bible, I find that the meaning is sometimes lost in the attempt to simplify. I have seen this often in all translations which try to translate Paraclete as one English word. My feeling is that it takes a phrase to do it justice.

The NWT is an abomination. Literal translation tends to remove the meaning and leave us with gibberish. Not to mention that JW's assiduosly removed most of the references to Jesus as God in the flesh. As for the Jehovah thing, they went absolutely bonkers and substituted the name for Lord whether the context supported such a replacement or not. No wonder JW's get such screwy notions about the Bible.

Click to expand...

i think the NWT gets a bad press because it does not take on the manmade trinity doctrine and most translators have been misled to believe this teaching. which clouds the thought . its nice to read the NWT as it is after the pure word of God ............ just what we need

FerventGodSeeker said:

There were other Bible translations around before the 1960s, yet JWs clung to the KJV until then, even in spite of its "manmade" doctrines (which I geuss they didn't have a problem with for the first 100 years of their existence? )

Click to expand...

yes serious bible students who wanted the pure word of God did much studying in the early years , and now the true knowledge is abundant
And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant."Daniel 12;4 lots of roving around the scriptures has thrown up true knowledge................good

ApologeticsCatholic said:

I belive any translation with the aprycrohpha to be a valid translation, when books are removed it takes away from the orignial translation....

was the aprycrohpa removed? yes
should it be in a valid translation? YES

If we examine the beautiful engraved title page of the 1611 KJV we see it Simply say " The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old testament, and the New" with no designation separating the "Books called Apocrypha" from the Old Testament. The creators of the 1611 KJV went to great lengths to form a separation between the Old and New testament even placing a special elaborately engraved title page marking the beginning of the New testament. Yet they placed NO SUCH distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the "Apocrypha". Again this show acceptance of these Books as part of the Old Testament.

another example of this is at the wording found at the bottom of the last page of the book of Malachi, [which most Protestants today consider the end of the Old Testament], just before the beginning of the First Esdras, we find the words "The end of the Prophets". As we can see the translators did not designate this as the end of the Old Testament [which they could have], they simply called it the end of the books of the Prophets, a grouping of books of the Old Testament.

which validates that even the old KJV HAd the apycropha, so if you want a closley translated valid bible, then choose a bible with the apycropha, again a favorite of mine is The New American Bible version by ST. James

Click to expand...

Psalm 83;18 would be a good verse to look up .

no offense may seriously, but what relevence does psalms 83:18 have anything to do with what i said, yes, yes, your JW i know and the psalms refers to him as Jehova, uh uh , got it, but the importantce to what i said is?

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

but for that matter considering we are on that topic..Gods name is unknown it has been given many titles but remeains unkown.....

many names given to god

ELOHIM......Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1 meaning "God", a reference to God's power and might.
ADONAI......Malachi 1:6 meaning "Lord", a reference to the Lordship of God. JEHOVAH--YAHWEH.....Genesis 2:4 a reference to God's divine salvation. JEHOVAH-MACCADDESHEM.......Exodus 31:13 meaning "The Lord thy sanctifier" JEHOVAH-ROHI......Psalm 23:1 meaning "The Lord my shepherd"
JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH.......Ezekiel 48:35 meaning "The Lord who is present" JEHOVAH-RAPHA.........Exodus 15:26 meaning "The Lord our healer" JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU......Jeremiah 23:6 meaning "The Lord our righteousness" JEHOVAH-JIREH.........Genesis 22:13-14 meaning "The Lord will provide" JEHOVAH-NISSI.........Exodus 17:15 meaning "The Lord our banner" JEHOVAH-SHALOM........Judges 6:24 meaning "The Lord is peace" JEHOVAH-SABBAOTH......Isaiah 6:1-3 meaning "The Lord of Hosts" EL-ELYON..............Genesis 14:17-20,Isaiah 14:13-14 meaning "The most high God" EL-ROI................Genesis 16:13 meaning "The strong one who sees" EL-SHADDAI............Genesis 17:1,Psalm 91:1 meaning "The God of the mountains or God Almighty" EL-OLAM...............Isaiah 40:28-31 meaning "The everlasting God" ABBA.............................Romans 8:15
ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)
ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1
ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13
AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14
ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9
ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2
APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1
ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1
AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15
AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2

BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6
BLESSED & HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15
BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15
BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33
BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35
BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56
BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16
CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4
CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1
CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42
CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20
CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11
CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16
COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)
COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4
CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25
CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29
CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16
COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6
CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19
DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26
DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7
DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)
END....................................Revelation 21:6
ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27
EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6

I can do this for hours. but still i dont see what that has to do with what is said
tell me what you meant