DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I was in a discussion with BSM1. Your input and school mastering is unneeded, unnecessary, unwarranted and unwanted.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
KJV "OT" quoters: a recommendation ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I was in a discussion with BSM1. Your input and school mastering is unneeded, unnecessary, unwarranted and unwanted.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
For example, what? I'm not going to get your books out and correct them for you. I have my Bible and it is quite correct, thank you very much.
Someone help me here. Apparently @DavidFirth believes that some insideous Jews, living after the destruction of the Second Temple, anticipated a Christian canon that would not be codified for centuries, and spitefully time-traveled back three centuries to in order to modify Hebrew Scripture in response.
Do I have this right?
Do I have this right?
I think you just proved my point. The way you stated your opinion was in a cordial manner. Not childishly calling names like, "lazy", or "cheap". It comes down to this. Does a person want to bring a valid point to the table with the opportunity to perhaps teach someone something( I'm all for that) , or just enjoy ridiculing others?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, you do not. The Christian canon was intact well before it was "codified."
They did have what Christians call the old testament. The New Testament was at that time , a work in progress.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
The also were filled with the Holy Spirit. I feel sure the Spirit knows the scriptures by heart.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Dealing with any text not in the language of its origin is difficult because ALL translations require the intermediary translator who has to make decisions about meaning.
The translator also might be saddled with a lack of understanding of the cultural (let alone linguistic) context of the original and might make decisions which seem reasonable on the level of word and maybe phrase, but not necessarily the verse, chapter or whole. Or vice versa -- a rewording to accommodate the whole might fail on the level of the specific. If one believes that the original is a divine text then each word is precise and necessary and any rewording risks missing a level of intent or adding in an incorrect interpretation.
When the translator's agendized bias (as opposed to a subconscious one endemic to the human condition) is worn on his sleeve, the resultant text is even less authentic. The KJV (whatever one calls it) has enough rewordings that (unless one considers THEM to be the divine, and the earlier Hebrew text to be inaccurate) call into question the utility of the text in its precise sense.
However, it is important to note the following:
1. Translated texts "authorized" or at least approved of (condoned) by other groups have similar, parallel biases, but the decisions they make comport with the theological/ideological stances of the other groups which authorize them.
2. Studying in the original is often no less challenging because it requires that the individual be the translator (or at least interpreter), making decisions based on whatever outside knowledge or learning (which, itself, is often the product of a religious structure) he or she has.
What is often recommended by Jews when it comes to biblical texts (the sections called by other an "Old Testament", a term many Jews eschew) is to use a translation created by those to whom the original version was addressed or who lived within the socio-cultural milieu which revolved around studying the text and living by its (fully explored) dictates. Orthodox Judaism believes that the text was never intended to be a solo source and was never understood in a vacuum. Looking towards a translation which doesn't incorporate complementary material which is considered the sine qua non of full comprehension is a problem. And replacing that orally transmitted but authoritative material with any other interpretive schema is an even bigger one.
The translator also might be saddled with a lack of understanding of the cultural (let alone linguistic) context of the original and might make decisions which seem reasonable on the level of word and maybe phrase, but not necessarily the verse, chapter or whole. Or vice versa -- a rewording to accommodate the whole might fail on the level of the specific. If one believes that the original is a divine text then each word is precise and necessary and any rewording risks missing a level of intent or adding in an incorrect interpretation.
When the translator's agendized bias (as opposed to a subconscious one endemic to the human condition) is worn on his sleeve, the resultant text is even less authentic. The KJV (whatever one calls it) has enough rewordings that (unless one considers THEM to be the divine, and the earlier Hebrew text to be inaccurate) call into question the utility of the text in its precise sense.
However, it is important to note the following:
1. Translated texts "authorized" or at least approved of (condoned) by other groups have similar, parallel biases, but the decisions they make comport with the theological/ideological stances of the other groups which authorize them.
2. Studying in the original is often no less challenging because it requires that the individual be the translator (or at least interpreter), making decisions based on whatever outside knowledge or learning (which, itself, is often the product of a religious structure) he or she has.
What is often recommended by Jews when it comes to biblical texts (the sections called by other an "Old Testament", a term many Jews eschew) is to use a translation created by those to whom the original version was addressed or who lived within the socio-cultural milieu which revolved around studying the text and living by its (fully explored) dictates. Orthodox Judaism believes that the text was never intended to be a solo source and was never understood in a vacuum. Looking towards a translation which doesn't incorporate complementary material which is considered the sine qua non of full comprehension is a problem. And replacing that orally transmitted but authoritative material with any other interpretive schema is an even bigger one.
@DavidFirth , in this is a thread addressing translations of what Christians call the "OT," you claim ...
Would you like to offer examples of changes made after the advent of Christianity? Or are you just spewing more of you anti-Jewish vitriol?
the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70.
Would you like to offer examples of changes made after the advent of Christianity? Or are you just spewing more of you anti-Jewish vitriol?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Then you're simply polluting the thread.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
If you say that the word of God pollutes the thread then I say, Let it be polluted!
It is fairly common to hear this kind of thing. I remember being told something like it, however it is not a doctrine and so not everybody is told that. The easiest way for a layperson to roughly verify whether the scriptures have been altered is to read about the Septuagint (LXX) translation in a Bible handbook and also about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The LXX translation into Greek was begun several centuries BCE and was widely in circulation. If there were a huge change from the Aramaic to the Septuagint or a huge difference between that and the Masoretic texts people would have complained and refused to use it. It is reasonable to conclude that the text has been the same since before 200 BCE.
In addition in the beginning of the 20th century a buried copy of the Isaiah scroll was found buried in a desert along with other writings now collectively called the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Isaiah scroll has been put on display in a museum and scans of its pages are available.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
King James authorised its translation and printing
Up to the present day it can only be printd by authorised printers.
The text was what it was.. he had no part at all in that.
The revised standard version has replaced it, both in content.. and in that it is authorised by a majority of christian churches..
The RSV is an American translation that follows very closely the KJV but brings it up to date in line with modern scholarship. I use the RSV English version. Which uses English idom rather than American. But is otherwise the same. So that it is understood in the UK
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
This is absurd. Where do you think your "OT" came from?
So, could you supply us with a link(s) as to where you got this "information" from?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And how could you possibly know that? Were you there over 2000 years ago to witness events?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I hope you're aware at least that the above is not from the "OT", therefore it is irrelevant to the OP and what's being discussed.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
They were not written to them , so most likely not.
They were not copied and collated till much later.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
They corrupted their version sometime after AD 70. If their version doesn't match the Bible then it's wrong. Just that simple.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, but the Holy Spirit confirms truth to the believer.