The scriptures 2009

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,665
1,829
113
Its fine to study it, but remember, on the day of pentecost He caused each man to hear in their own language and the Holy Spirit still does that when He teaches each of us.

So studying it is fine. But understanding the spirit is better. :)
IMO this is what the Hebrew does for us. That is what I look for. The revelation out of the language, not the literal. But, not discarding literal either.
 
Jul 23, 2017
879
31
0
gotta be careful with a lot of these new versions they are cranking out.

everyone knows whats my view on this but if u gotta get a new version atleast make sure who the translators were. that they were some faithful men of God. for a newer version i recommend Holman christian standard bible. its good. big uce VCO uses it.

u dont want a heretic or an atheist translating ur bible.

btw i literally feel bad inside right now a little for recommending a bible other than kjv.. unreal
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
I mean, what does it give you, to know Hebrew? In your theology etc.
I studied Hebrew from the time I was 4 until my 13th birthday. It was expected of all the boys in my Synagogue.

I wasm't concerned with gaining an advantage.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Even if Matthew was written in Hebrew that does not equate to the whole NT, which you seem to imply. Simply put there is no original Hebrew New Testament. Any NT text that is in Hebrew are very late (that is very late) translations from another language.

Anyhow an important question regarding Matthew.. Did he quote from the LXX? And if this is so what does that tell you?


Phil,

Eusebius appears to indicate that Matthew did write a Hebrew language gospel; but it came after (NOT BEFORE) the Greek version; so, there is no way to claim that the Hebrew edition influenced the Greek.
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Phil,

Eusebius appears to indicate that Matthew did write a Hebrew language gospel; but it came after (NOT BEFORE) the Greek version; so, there is no way to claim that the Hebrew edition influenced the Greek.
Actually it was originally in Hebrew and each traslaed from the Hebrew:

Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)


Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)


Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)


Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
58
HBG. Pa. USA
I have heard mention of a translation called The Scriptures 2009. And I have heard some verses and tended to like the wording.

Started reading this translation free online but immediately didn't like something. Told myself I was being overly critical for some odd reason I couldnt figure out because I had really been looking forward to this translation. Decided to keep reading but went to read about the translation because I was just...full of some really unfounded and puzzling...unease? Caution?

So it turns out its a translation commissioned by the watchtower society but they did not want their organization to be visibly connected to the translation.
Wow....can you give me a reference for that?
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
58
HBG. Pa. USA
They already said it is not true in this thread.
I have not studied the TS2009 out for issues. I have had a copy for years now. I use a lot of translations and interlinears in my devotion time with the LORD. So the fact that they all have errors in them does not bother me. Thanks again for responding. I hate waiting for answers to unanswered questions...LOL
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
Watch out for the New Simplified Bible. I added it to my e-sword program and found out it was written by a jw after reading John 1. I reported this to the site I got it from and now "somehow" I cannot log into that site any longer. :D
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Watch out for the New Simplified Bible. I added it to my e-sword program and found out it was written by a jw after reading John 1. I reported this to the site I got it from and now "somehow" I cannot log into that site any longer. :D
thats messed up, if someone has the trueh or what they beleive to e the truth they should not stifle the voices of theose who disagree, sa if it is truth it will prevail.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
448
83
57
Watch out for the New Simplified Bible. I added it to my e-sword program and found out it was written by a jw after reading John 1. I reported this to the site I got it from and now "somehow" I cannot log into that site any longer. :D
Hummm I guess they don’t want you knocking on their door lol
Blessings
Bill
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
58
HBG. Pa. USA
Watch out for the New Simplified Bible. I added it to my e-sword program and found out it was written by a jw after reading John 1. I reported this to the site I got it from and now "somehow" I cannot log into that site any longer. :D
I have e-sword. I can do the same thing you did to see if they block me also.
Which site?

Was wondering..... some times e-sword lags on my pc. Do you have the same issues? Does anybody?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Actually it was originally in Hebrew and each traslaed from the Hebrew:

Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)


Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)


Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)


Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)

"Scholars have established that Matthew and Luke were substantially copied from Mark, with Matthew using some 90 per cent of the verses in Mark. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language"
https://christianity.stackexchange....what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written


1. The internal evidence of our book of Matthew shows that it was written in Greek with some additions (possibly taken from Hebrew).

2. Some historical figures as you quoted, say that the apostle Matthew created Hebrew text of gospel.

---

Conclusion: So far, one solution is to say we do not have that original Matthew´s gospel and we have another one, only named "by Matthew", but actually derived from Mark by some unknown author.

In the end, it should not be so important, its only one book of 27 and I think no doctrine or specific teaching is based on it.
 
Last edited:
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
I have e-sword. I can do the same thing you did to see if they block me also.
Which site?

Was wondering..... some times e-sword lags on my pc. Do you have the same issues? Does anybody?
Hey brother,

This was on bible-support.com. Seems the site wants no thorough examinations of its modules. The NSB came from there, and after reading John 1 I searched google for info and it lead me to a site where a man who was many years in JW's claimed authorship. Interestingly enough after I reported this I could no longer find this mans page or info.

Another module was added, lauding the work of a certain author of the commentary and added some information about him. I googled it out of interest and found some very negative things about the person that were not quoted, and were actually cut from the text there. I had never heard of the author (and I do not recall who it was at this point, nor the module) but I added the rest of the story about him from the very same source used in the reply under this module at bible-support. This didn't fly either, they were very angry about it, so half-truths are tolerated.

I'm not sure why they want to censor the entire facts, but they have in the past. There are (or were) some anti-trinitarian contributors there.

It is wise to investigate the modules and their sources and not just believe naively that all of them are solid. I do recommend the site and e-sword to others, but I do not go to bible-support.com as I have all I need.

The only slowness I get from e-sword is when I first open it, or, when it is already open but I do a Scripture search it lags at first but after that it is fine.
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
"Scholars have established that Matthew and Luke were substantially copied from Mark, with Matthew using some 90 per cent of the verses in Mark. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language"
https://christianity.stackexchange....what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written


1. The internal evidence of our book of Matthew shows that it was written in Greek with some additions (possibly taken from Hebrew).

2. Some historical figures as you quoted, say that the apostle Matthew created Hebrew text of gospel.

---

Conclusion: So far, one solution is to say we do not have that original Matthew´s gospel and we have another one, only named "by Matthew", but actually derived from Mark by some unknown author.

In the end, it should not be so important, its only one book of 27 and I think no doctrine or specific teaching is based on it.
Was this quote from Mark?

Mat 2:23, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”

and what "scholars" that was a internet message board of people giving their view the same as here, and link to wikipedia articles.

Also if there are scholars that say this, what do they base it on and how do the deem the words of the historians who lived at that time to be false?

And how do you get around there only being 13 generations in the Greek version and the full 14 in the Hebrew version?

Mat 1 ESV Translated from the Greek Version

12 And after the deportation to Babylon:
Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, 1
and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 2
13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, 3
and Abiud the father of Eliakim, 4
and Eliakim the father of Azor, 5
14 and Azor the father of Zadok, 6
and Zadok the father of Achim, 7
and Achim the father of Eliud, 8
15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, 9
and Eleazar the father of Matthan, 10
and Matthan the father of Jacob, 11
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, 12
(a husband and wife are not 2 generations, if they are counted as 2 it goes against every meaning of a generation)
of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 13

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.


Translated from the Hebrew Version;

1:12, "And after the exile to Baḇel,
Yeḵonyah brought forth She’alti’ĕl, 1
and She’alti’ĕl brought forth Zerubbaḇel. 2
1:13, "And Zerubbaḇel brought forth Aḇihuḏ, 3
and Aḇihuḏ brought forth Elyaqim, 4
and Elyaqim brought forth Azor. 5
1:14, "And Azor brought forth Tsaḏoq, 6
and Tsaḏoq brought forth Aqim, 7
and Aqim brought forth Elihuḏ.8
1:15, "And Elihuḏ brought forth El‛azar, 9
and El‛azar brought forth Mattan, 10
and Mattan brought forth Ya‛aqoḇ. 11
1:16, "And Ya‛aqoḇ brought forth Yosĕph 12 (a father and a daughter are 2 different generations)
the father of Miryam, 13
of whom was born יהושע who is called Messiah. 14

1:17, "So all the generations from Aḇraham to Dawiḏ were fourteen generations, and from Dawiḏ until the exile to Baḇel were fourteen generations, and from the exile to Baḇel until the Messiah were fourteen generations."


 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51

and what "scholars" that was a internet message board of people giving their view the same as here, and link to wikipedia articles.

Also if there are scholars that say this, what do they base it on and how do the deem the words of the historians who lived at that time to be false?



Hi Hizikyah,


The simple fact is that there never was an original Hebrew New Testament it was in Greek. This is a Hebrew roots fallacy. Any NT that is in Hebrew is a late translation from another language. As I have said earlier even if Matthew was written in Hebrew, that does not mean the whole NT was written in Hebrew.

Anyhow, can you tell me Hiziyah, did Matthew quote from the LXX?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Was this quote from Mark?

Mat 2:23, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”

and what "scholars" that was a internet message board of people giving their view the same as here, and link to wikipedia articles.

Also if there are scholars that say this, what do they base it on and how do the deem the words of the historians who lived at that time to be false?

And how do you get around there only being 13 generations in the Greek version and the full 14 in the Hebrew version?

Mat 1 ESV Translated from the Greek Version

12 And after the deportation to Babylon:
Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, 1
and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 2
13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, 3
and Abiud the father of Eliakim, 4
and Eliakim the father of Azor, 5
14 and Azor the father of Zadok, 6
and Zadok the father of Achim, 7
and Achim the father of Eliud, 8
15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, 9
and Eleazar the father of Matthan, 10
and Matthan the father of Jacob, 11
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, 12
(a husband and wife are not 2 generations, if they are counted as 2 it goes against every meaning of a generation)
of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 13

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.


Translated from the Hebrew Version;

1:12, "And after the exile to Baḇel,
Yeḵonyah brought forth She’alti’ĕl, 1
and She’alti’ĕl brought forth Zerubbaḇel. 2
1:13, "And Zerubbaḇel brought forth Aḇihuḏ, 3
and Aḇihuḏ brought forth Elyaqim, 4
and Elyaqim brought forth Azor. 5
1:14, "And Azor brought forth Tsaḏoq, 6
and Tsaḏoq brought forth Aqim, 7
and Aqim brought forth Elihuḏ.8
1:15, "And Elihuḏ brought forth El‛azar, 9
and El‛azar brought forth Mattan, 10
and Mattan brought forth Ya‛aqoḇ. 11
1:16, "And Ya‛aqoḇ brought forth Yosĕph 12 (a father and a daughter are 2 different generations)
the father of Miryam, 13
of whom was born יהושע who is called Messiah. 14

1:17, "So all the generations from Aḇraham to Dawiḏ were fourteen generations, and from Dawiḏ until the exile to Baḇel were fourteen generations, and from the exile to Baḇel until the Messiah were fourteen generations."


Matthew is longer than Mark, so everything in Matthew cannot be from Mark, logically. Its based on Mark, thats something different.

There is no evidence that your "hebrew version" is authentic original Matthew mentioned by Ireneus etc.
 
Last edited: