IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I suppose it depends on whether it's Christian scholars or any other scholars.That's not a scholarly opinion though is it? It's your personal bias ... No offense intended.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I suppose it depends on whether it's Christian scholars or any other scholars.That's not a scholarly opinion though is it? It's your personal bias ... No offense intended.
That's just not true.I suppose it depends on whether it's Christian scholars or any other scholars.
I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity. A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard VersionI am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.
This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
Yes it is. It's Christians scholars that claim Jews deliberately changed the text. No other scholars say that. All scholars except Christians scholars agree that an original language manuscript is going to be more accurate than a translation, just as an original document is going to be more reliable than a photocopy.That's just not true.
Virtually every Christian translation of Jeremiah 31:32 says "husband." Go to Biblehub.com and view the FLOOD of Christian translations all saying "husband".The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity. A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard Version
It is the Christian Bible of choice for serious scripture studies as it mostly uses the closest translation of a particular word even if it reads rather clumsily.
How about just believe in God and be a good descent human being? I think you are a wonderful person. Jews love righteous Gentiles.My 33 years as a Christian, until 2003, is shredded now. From my own experience, I don't see most Christians as scholars in any sense of the word. I see Islamic doctrine as being highly politicised. I think the Fatwas have greatly deluded the spirit of what Muhammad PBUH was directed to teach. As to Judaism, I am not ready to try to observe 622 rules. So, it appears that I am on my own; a most uncomfortable position to be in.
How about just believe in God and be a good descent human being? I think you are a wonderful person. Jews love righteous Gentiles.
Jewish scholars also compare the Mesoratic with the Septuagint because of scribal errors. That's little copyist mistakes that can occur; as they admit. This is because for such a long time there was no printing press. Just scribes copying by hand.Yes it is. It's Christians scholars that claim Jews deliberately changed the text. No other scholars say that. All scholars except Christians scholars agree that an original language manuscript is going to be more accurate than a translation, just as an original document is going to be more reliable than a photocopy.
Give me an example of a well known Jewish (not messianic Jewish) scholar who believes that there are instances where the Septuagint is correct and the Hebrew text incorrect in terms of an entire word being changed. I want name, credential, verse and word, and a citation online that I can check.Jewish scholars also compare the Mesoratic with the Septuagint because of scribal errors. That's little copyist mistakes that can occur; as they admit. This is because for such a long time there was no printing press. Just scribes copying by hand.
I wasn't referring to that as I didn't even look it up, but what I did refer you to is that the NIV is not a good translation, especially when compared to the RSV. However, even the RSV I have found to have questionable translations at times, and maybe what you cite above might be just another one of those cases.Virtually every Christian translation of Jeremiah 31:32 says "husband." Go to Biblehub.com and view the FLOOD of Christian translations all saying "husband".
Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt--a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity.
A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard Version
It is the Christian Bible of choice for serious scripture studies as it mostly uses the closest translation of a particular word even if it reads rather clumsily.
So ALLLL of the Christian translations that translate it husband are wrong? My my that would say something pretty awful about Christian translators.I wasn't referring to that as I didn't even look it up, but what I did refer you to is that the NIV is not a good translation, especially when compared to the RSV. However, even the RSV I have found to have questionable translations at times, and maybe what you cite above might be just another one of those cases.
Translating ancient texts is very difficult to say the least, but the NIV was created by Zondervan purposely to reflect Evangelical teachings.
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.
This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
The Jewish version is in HEBREW.I am not sure what the point of the O.P. is.
If the Jewish version of 300 b.c. phrase was "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", (however one wants to express the principle of "suspending care for") etc and the Christian writer of Hebrews uses the same greek phrase and word for "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", as the earlier Jewish version, then what is the claim of error in the O.P.?
Is the O.P. saying the Jewish translation of 300 b.c. (LXX / Septuagint) made a mistake but the Jewish translation of medieval times (masoretic) corrected the mistake?
Is the O.P. trying to say the Christian writer who is quoting a greek version should NOT have quoted the earlier Jewish version (LXX)?
Is the O.P. saying the idiom which the Masoretic uses for "husband" is actually technically correct, or that, since the masoretic doesn't technically say "husband" in hebrew, that the later Jews mistranslated?
Can you explain the point the O.P. is attempting to make?
Clear
φιτζφιω
I need to ask your indulgence. There is a great deal of what I would label as misinformation in your post, but until I regain the full use of my right arm and my right hand - probably not for several weeks at the earliest - the amount of typing I can do is severely constrained.IndigoChild
1) NATIONAL HEBREW (the language of the Masoretic) is NOT the original language of the texts.............................