Source texts for the Bible translations/reading

[trofimus]

Angela53510:

Thanks for the intro.

Old Testament:
I personally also prefer the LXX. I have it in Greek (Ralph's edition).

Not sure if there is also some traditional version of LXX? For example from the Orthodox church?
Because when I compare my Ralph's edition with for example OT by apostoliki-diakonia.gr, I find some differences.

Yes, I can read only Genesis and some Psalms, Greek vocabulary is really too broad in the LXX, so I would also want some English translation of LXX.
Would you recommend NETS or Brenton?

New Testament:
We have 6000 manuscripts, but because the vast majority of them are of a Byzantine textype, they are quite "useless" and only few ancient manuscripts are preferred.

I personally cant decide between MT and CT (Alland). Both arguments look credible.
What do you say to this?
Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

Do you have some info about which manuscripts specifically were used for Textus Receptus? From the TR editions I prefer the TR of Stephanus, which is the traditional reformation basic text.
But I could not find it in a printed edition.There is only the one of Scrivener, who made it backwardly from KJV, which is, of course, a nonsense.

 

[BeyondET]

Well IMO what ever bible you choose, choose either a interlinear bible or a study bible of the version you pick can greatly increase understanding of different translations of bible language.

 

[oldethennew]

one of the ones that we like is called: Thayer's Lexicon for a reference, it's very detailed...

 

[Depleted]

Depleted: Thanks for the tip, I have some books from F.F.Bruce, but If I remember correctly, he did not write about Greek editions...?

No,but he explains well how we got the Bible we have, and gives valid reasons why we need to keep updating.

 

[trofimus]

If any of you can post some arguments "why I chose the Critical Text" or "why I chose the Majority Text" or "why I chose the Textus Receptus", it would be useful for me during my decision making.

 

[The_Bible]

All the texts of the Septuagint base from the "Letter of Aristeas" where the supposed librarian of the Greek Pharaoh, Ptomely 2 Philadelphus asked the high priest for the Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament) to be translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews.

Along with, 72 Jewish scholars put in separate cells where they "miraculously" translated word for word the same. So they claim this Septuagint texts existed in the time of Christ & that he used that instead of the preserved Masoretic texts.

Aristeas claims to be Greek court official sent by the "librarian" Demetrius to gather the Hebrew scholars & naming them but they do not match as hebrew names but rather Greek names in the Maccabean era. Demetrius, the supposed librarian in fact, was never librarian of the pharaoh, only served in his court.

In Aristeas 7:14, Ptomely the pharaoh tells Demetrius & the jewish scholars how wonderful it is that they came on fhe anniversary of his naval victory over Antigonus". When the ONLY recorded Egyptian naval victory happened many years after Demetrius death, proving it to be a hoax.

Many Christian scholars claim that Jesus used the septuagint in his time but that contradicts scriptures (see below) where a jot is a hebrew letter & a tittle being a small mark to distingius between hebrew letters. Also, Jesus only mentioned the scriptures in the traditional hebrew way Torah (Law), Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings).

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The reason these texts are still being brought up is of what I said earlier the Roman Catholics & Orthodox desperately want them to be genuinely inspired bc it goes with their doctrine. 45 Alexandrian manuscripts vs the 5,000 Greek manuscripts favoring the Textus Receptus. The septuagint texts are the ones that started to canonize the Apocrypha forcing you to accept everything that the doctrine contains which are leading many protestants to Rome.

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

 

[trofimus]

All the texts of the Septuagint base from the "Letter of Aristeas" where the supposed librarian of the Greek Pharaoh, Ptomely 2 Philadelphus asked the high priest for the Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament) to be translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews.

Along with, 72 Jewish scholars put in separate cells where they "miraculously" translated word for word the same. So they claim this Septuagint texts existed in the time of Christ & that he used that instead of the preserved Masoretic texts.

Aristeas claims to be Greek court official sent by the "librarian" Demetrius to gather the Hebrew scholars & naming them but they do not match as hebrew names but rather Greek names in the Maccabean era. Demetrius, the supposed librarian in fact, was never librarian of the pharaoh, only served in his court.

In Aristeas 7:14, Ptomely the pharaoh tells Demetrius & the jewish scholars how wonderful it is that they came on fhe anniversary of his naval victory over Antigonus". When the ONLY recorded Egyptian naval victory happened many years after Demetrius death, proving it to be a hoax.

Many Christian scholars claim that Jesus used the septuagint in his time but that contradicts scriptures (see below) where a jot is a hebrew letter & a tittle being a small mark to distingius between hebrew letters. Also, Jesus only mentioned the scriptures in the traditional hebrew way Torah (Law), Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings).

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The reason these texts are still being brought up is of what I said earlier the Roman Catholics & Orthodox desperately want them to be genuinely inspired bc it goes with their doctrine. 45 Alexandrian manuscripts vs the 5,000 Greek manuscripts favoring the Textus Receptus. The septuagint texts are the ones that started to canonize the Apocrypha forcing you to accept everything that the doctrine contains which are leading many protestants to Rome.

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

If you want to say your opinion, fine.

But if you want to present something like fact and truth, always provide links, sources and evidences so we can verify your facts.

This is obviously some copy & paste text.

 

[The_Bible]

How does a protestant randomly believe something promoted by catholics to be the word of God? Something that REFORMATIONS have revolted against? If someone believes that the KIV has added or omitted, verses in the bible, then explain these verses that clearly shows SOMETHING HAD TO BE ADDED to fill in these missing verses? Verses that are non-KJ and are found in all Wescott & Hott bibles.

The Codex Sinaiticus is missing all 4 chapters of Genesis, missing all of Exodus, all but 3 chapters of Leviticus, all but 12 chapters of Numbers, all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapter of Joshua, all but 7 chapter of Judges, missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence of Ezra 9:9 without fixing & keeps going! Missing first 8 chapters of Ezra, missing Lamentations after 2:20, missing all of Ezekiel, all of Daniel, Hosea, all of Amos, and all of Micah. That is 11 entire books missing, & most, of 6 more. 1/4 of the Bible books! But ofc they maintain all of the Apocryphas. (If you think I'm lying you can go to the website below).

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

Proverbs (30:5-6) - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

All of these missing chapters and one chooses to believe and actually support the lies they teach them? The Bible clearly states do not add unto the word of God, well if they are missing all these verses what is actually considered scriptural? Wouldn't they have to..idk ADD unto the missing passages eventually having to make an error and be found a LIAR? Is pretty simple, start reading a real Bible aka KJV and respect the preservation it has maintained.

 

[trofimus]

How does a protestant randomly believe something promoted by catholics to be the word of God?

How does a protestant randomly believe something promoted by Jews to be the word of God?

See? This is not the best argument ever. LXX is still much closer to Christianity than the MSS text.

If someone believes that the KIV has added or omitted, verses in the bible, then explain these verses that clearly shows SOMETHING HAD TO BE ADDED to fill in these missing verses? Verses that are non-KJ and are found in all Wescott & Hott bibles.

Stop your KJV nonsense, I said in my OP I dont what to discuss any English translation here.

The Codex Sinaiticus is missing all 4 chapters of Genesis, missing all of Exodus, all but 3 chapters of Leviticus, all but 12 chapters of Numbers, all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapter of Joshua, all but 7 chapter of Judges, missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence of Ezra 9:9 without fixing & keeps going! Missing first 8 chapters of Ezra, missing Lamentations after 2:20, missing all of Ezekiel, all of Daniel, Hosea, all of Amos, and all of Micah. That is 11 entire books missing, & most, of 6 more. 1/4 of the Bible books! But ofc they maintain all of the Apocryphas. (If you think I'm lying you can go to the website below).

So? Every early codex or manuscript has something missing. Its because they are old!

Its natural that the codex from 14th century from Byzantine empire will be more preserved than the one from the 4th century. What is so hard to comprehend here?

 

[Dan_473]

I know that this was probably debated in "KJV only" threads or "NIV errors" threads etc. But only as something helpful for the translation debate.

I would like to keep this thread about the sources only.

I am currently choosing what to read for the OT and for the NT.

I have these choices:

----------------------

Old Testament:
LXX - Brenton or NETS
MSS - Stutgart or Hebraica

New Testament:
Nestle Aland (UBS)
Tischendorf
Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus
Hodges & Farstad Majority text
Pierpont & Robinson Majority Text

----------------------

What would you recommend and why?

This is thread meant mostly for people knowing what I am talking about and having something interesting (argument for, argument against, some intersting insight etc) to say.

I do not want to debate KJV or NIV etc.
If you just googled the terms, please do not be too much active in posting your quick opinions

Thank you

great question, and kind of a 'meta' question.



the Bible doesn't say

which sources are to be used

for the Bible.

 

[The_Bible]

"I shall sit down to Holy Scriptures with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it… all these three years I have been working entirely at Greek and have not been , playing with it." ― Desiderius Erasmus

"As to me, all I have sought has been to open my contemporaries' eyes and bring them back from ritual to true Christianity." ― Desiderius Erasmus

"Read the Gospels … and see how we have degenerated." ― Desiderius Erasmus

Erasmus lived during the Renaissance, a period of time where Catholic aristocrats were free to enforce self beneficial dogmas, and doctrines. These aristocrats restricted scriptures from the public to promote their own agenda and prevent anyone from revolting against them. One had to strive to be a pious monk in order to get a hold of scriptures. How would one expect Erasmus, NOT, to be "catholic", and be able to compile such manuscripts? Erasmus remained "catholic", but with close friendship with Martin Luther, it was clear that he was against the papacy. Just the act of him compiling those manuscripts labeled him a heretic amongst the clergy. A few of his books were put in the library of "forbidden books" by Pope Paul IV.

“Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” - Thomas Linacre, 1490

That quote was before the time of Erasmus proving that just bc people were catholics doesn't mean they agreed being their pawns. Most famously known, was Martin Luther, brought up as a devoted monk to the teachings of Catholicism led Christianity to reform itself into the Protestants.

John Wycliffe translated the first English bible from the Latin Vulgate, but the papacy had issues with that so they demanded after he died, for his bones to be crushed and scattered in the river. Even Wycliffe felt the need to oppose the Catholics. In 1415, John Hus who supported Wycliffe's idea of the people being able to read the scriptures with discernment was burned at the stake using Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindle for the fire. “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed” were the last words of John Hus. Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention [a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church] into the church door at Wittenberg.

William Tyndale was the first man to translate the Greek manuscripts into a English Bible which got him convicted of heresy later to be executed by strangulation and burned at the stake. The manuscripts originated from the church of Antioch in its original Greek language. Published by Erasmus, and through a series of revisions by Martin Luther, the KJV's preface states that they used the last two editions of Theodore Beza and Stephanius. If your not a Catholic why would you use all these other bibles strictly going against the people who have been persecuted to perserve the word of God. Your a Reformer not a papist heathen.

 

[The_Bible]

The following are quotes from various researchers:

"In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died."

"He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."

[He was an] "ex monk … a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."

"In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."

"[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers"

"The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation" of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."

 

[trofimus]

The_Bible:

Anything you said (again without any source) changes nothing on my OP question.

Your quotes are only saying that the work of Erasmus was not favoured by the Roman Church. Which is natural, because the roman church preferred the latin Vulgate as a sacred text.

Still nothing related to my question which Greek editions is best to read and most precise.

 

[Dan_473]

I like Nestle for the nt... it's constantly updated...
with the sblgnt second... it's available on bible gateway


for ot, any common edition of the masoretic, with the lxx (any common version) as a close second.

 

[The_Bible]

I like Nestle for the nt... it's constantly updated...
with the sblgnt second... it's available on bible gateway


for ot, any common edition of the masoretic, with the lxx (any common version) as a close second.

Nestle is a Jesuit inspired corrupted text

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

A multitude of texts are used for translations, not just one.
The LXX has some interesting inconsistencies, but it is still used by many translations included the KJV.
The Masoretic texts aren't that bad.

I'd avoid the Alexandrian manuscripts as a main base. This is a case where older isn't better due to the corruption in these texts.

 

[The_Bible]

A multitude of texts are used for translations, not just one.
The LXX has some interesting inconsistencies, but it is still used by many translations included the KJV.
The Masoretic texts aren't that bad.

I'd avoid the Alexandrian manuscripts as a main base. This is a case where older isn't better due to the corruption in these texts.

I don't believe the KJV includes the septuagint

 

[fredoheaven]

I don't believe the KJV includes the septuagint

ok, they know the readings of the Septuagint but they never directly used it. Why? Simply because, the LXX is just a legendary, maybe it lines with Aleph, B and other minority, basically it is an Alexandrian Text type of manuscripts in fact Origen calls B mss as LXX.

 

[fredoheaven]

I know that this was probably debated in "KJV only" threads or "NIV errors" threads etc. But only as something helpful for the translation debate.

I would like to keep this thread about the sources only.

I am currently choosing what to read for the OT and for the NT.

I have these choices:

----------------------

Old Testament:
LXX - Brenton or NETS
MSS - Stutgart or Hebraica

New Testament:
Nestle Aland (UBS)
Tischendorf
Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus
Hodges & Farstad Majority text
Pierpont & Robinson Majority Text

----------------------

What would you recommend and why?

This is thread meant mostly for people knowing what I am talking about and having something interesting (argument for, argument against, some intersting insight etc) to say.

I do not want to debate KJV or NIV etc.
If you just googled the terms, please do not be too much active in posting your quick opinions

Thank you

Okay. but I haven't have one now,

 

[Bladerunner]

I know that this was probably debated in "KJV only" threads or "NIV errors" threads etc. But only as something helpful for the translation debate.

I would like to keep this thread about the sources only.

I am currently choosing what to read for the OT and for the NT.

I have these choices:

----------------------

Old Testament:
LXX - Brenton or NETS
MSS - Stutgart or Hebraica

New Testament:
Nestle Aland (UBS)
Tischendorf
Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus
Hodges & Farstad Majority text
Pierpont & Robinson Majority Text

----------------------

What would you recommend and why?

This is thread meant mostly for people knowing what I am talking about and having something interesting (argument for, argument against, some intersting insight etc) to say.

I do not want to debate KJV or NIV etc.
If you just googled the terms, please do not be too much active in posting your quick opinions

Thank you

Boy, you are picky.

The Septuagint XXL for the OT is the best, mainly because it was written by 70 scholars ( septuagint meaning 70), under the sponsorship of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
The Hebrew in those days was to the Jews as Latin is to the RC. It was a lesser used language at the time where Greek was the main language.


The NT is a little harder because so many copies were distributed (so its authenticity could not be disputed) but I will try.

The oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are three that had their origins in Alexandria during the 4th/5th centuries.There are several passages that do not appear in these passages. This no doubt makes for some good debate.

From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, in Greek. It was in 1525 that Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, subsequently known as Textus Receptus ("Received Text").

The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available to them, but they leaned most heavily on the major Byzantine manuscripts, particularly Textus Receptus.

Therefore I would recommend the Textus Receptus or Just go with the KJV Version.....It is a little harder to read and understand but look at it like this. All those words you have to look up, you will be deciphering (like that word lol) them and their meaning(s). Good luck.