The PuritanBoard - Translations and Manuscripts

Do NT authors quote the LXX?

TimV — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:27:00 GMT

OK, so I've been trying to go through the King James Only controversy systematically. Partly to help me understand the subject matter myself.

The first point was addressed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/lxx-discussion-54112/

where I think most people following the discussion are on the same page. Specifically there were Greek translations (was a Greek translation) of the Old Testament during the time of Christ, and these were widely available and read, and were familiar to Jews and early Christians. For brevity we refer to these translations as the Septuagint, or LXX for short. We all, or at least the majority of us acknowledge that we really don't know exactly how the LXX looked like or how many versions were out there, but we reject the theory held mostly by Fundamental Baptist King James Only writers that there wasn't a Greek translation of the Bible widely available during the time of Christ.

Again, for purposes of discussion, the LXX stands for any Greek translation of the Old Testament widely available during the time of Christ.

So, the next subject I would like to address is whether or not authors of the New Testament quoted the LXX in preference to the Hebrew text which they had at the time.

As before, please limit the discussion to the specific question!!

Thanks to all.

The ESV and the word "begotten"

KSon — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:19:03 GMT

This thread is not meant to be an ESV-bashing session. It is the version that the elders of my church have chosen as the one used from the pulpit and for teaching. I am trying (as a KJV/NKJV guy) to familiarize myself with it, as my opportunities to teach are gradually increasing.

My questions center on the word monogenēs, particularly at John 1:18 and 3:16. In each of these verses, in both the TR and NA/UBS, the word appears twice, back-to-back. The KJV, NKJV and NASB translate this as "only begotten" in both places. The ESV translates it as "only" in both places. This leads me to two questions that perhaps you can help me with:

1. Why does the ESV translate the two Greek words with just one English word? Apparently the translators of the KJV, NKJV, and NASB felt compelled to translate both words.

2. Are there any theological ramifications from choosing not to translate the additional word?

What is your preferred translation

Blueridge Believer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT

Interesting bible translation poll. I didn't know there were so many.
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/po...ation/poll.php

HCS study bible

Kevin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:55:22 GMT

Has anyone on the PB heard much about the new HCS study bible?

All that I know is that it is NOT Ginormous.

YouTube - HCSB Study Bible: GINORMOUS!!!

The KJV Conquest 1840 revision

Andrew Short — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:51:53 GMT

anyone know where I can get it?

Rev. 16:5 in the KJV

fralo4truth — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:26:48 GMT

I'm currently reading 'The King James Only Controversy' by James White. He makes mention that the text found in Rev. 16:5 according to the KJV reads:

"O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be..."

Whereas the actual reading is "...who art and who was, O Holy One".

I am by no means an authority on this subject at all, but this didn't set well with me. There are a few places in the Revelation in which the past, present, and future time elements are contained (e.g. 1:4,8,18,19). The actual reading, according to Mr. White, eliminates the future element by omitting 'and shall be', or a comparable expression. I have always enjoyed seeing this text in the same light as those expressions in the first chapter mentioned above, but now that has been lost somewhat if Mr. White is correct. He probably is correct, but I just wanted to share this with you all.

Thoughts?

The Impact of Biblical Examples of Textual Issues?

Robert Truelove — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:46:40 GMT

I am struck by the discontinuity between how the text of the LXX is handled by the Holy Spirit through New Testament citations and the way we (that includes me) handle the text today.

We consider a pastor a "Buckwheat" who doesn't quote a Greek or Hebrew word here and there or explain a complex grammatical construction to bring insightful hidden knowledge forward for the congregation.

Throughout the New Testament, there are numerous citations made from the LXX but not one example of the preacher or author making either a correction or amplifying the meaning from the original Hebrew (not even the scholar Paul!). There are even places where citations are made from the LXX that do not agree with the Hebrew, yet ALL citations are quoted and used as received without textual equivocation.

At the danger of being considered a "Buckwheat", how (and should) the example of the New Testament's use of the LXX here presented influence and shape our understanding of both textual and translational issues...especially as related to public preaching and teaching?

Best Greek New Testamente version

plandazuri — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:27:41 GMT

Hello everybody,
I am taking a Greek class so I need to buy a Greek New Testament.
Could you pls. share which version you think is the best one for learning purposes?
Thanks.

1 John 5:7�8: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Gesetveemet — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:37:03 GMT

I have hopes that this article by Dr. J. D. Watson would benefit someone. I have supplied a brief quote of the authors purpose :book2:

Quote:

My purpose, therefore, is not to prove that the Johannine Comma is authentic (or that the accused copyists were innocent), because as the �defense attorney� I don�t have to do that. Rather, my purpose is to allow the critics to present their evidence and just see if they meet their burden of proof. Let us see whether they do indeed prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt or if it is at least possible that the Comma is genuine. As the great theologian Robert L. Dabney put it in 1891: �All the critics vote against it. But let us see whether the case is as clear as they would have it.�

Before continuing, I want to interject that my purpose is not to turn this into a polemic for �King James Onlyism,� for that is not my position on the textual issue. . . .

Sola Scriptura Ministries

.

Thompson Chain Reference Bible NKJV

Michael Doyle — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:58:00 GMT

I am so totally excited as I bought my new Thompson Chain NKJV today. It is the Kirkbride and it is fantastic. I know many posts like this have ran before but I was interested at who else uses this translation and do you use it for teaching and sermon prep? :up:

Why is the NIV so popular?

Bern — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:35:49 GMT

Hello folks,

I'm currently searching for a new church to attend with my wife. Practically every church within a 10 mile radius uses the NIV, which to my limited knowledge is a poor translation. I'm just wondering if anyone knows why they use this version... even the reformed churches use it. I find it quite poor, as it seems that the translators have imposed their own interpretation on the text by adding or subtracting words etc.

WHY?! :(

propitiation and expiation and sacrifice

yeutter — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:15:38 GMT

In passages such as Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 the Authorized translation uses the word propitiation some newer translations say expiation. Some others say sacrifice. Do they really mean the same thing?

Codex Sainaiticus "heavily corrected"

Bern — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:45:16 GMT

Hi folks,

Wasn't sure if this should go in apologetics or not...

I'm currently discussing (via facebook) the reliability of the bible. I've given some evidence for its reliability based on the fact that there are many copies that hardly vary at all. In his last message he mentioned the project being undertaken to digitise the Codex Sainaiticus, and told me about how it was "heavily corrected". If you guys don't mind I'd like to post his response here... could anyone help me at all here... he's sick and tired of people saying "just believe it", so I want to be able to engage him on an intellectual level, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this side of things... HELP :)

Here it is:

Mate, i am obviously researching what you have told me, i found this by the BBC

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?
The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.
For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.... Read More
Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.
For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.
The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Discrepancies

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?
Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.
"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

I may need longer than the one day i told you i would need for my reply LOL, there is a lot to learn, (i thought i new alot but this has shown me i am wrong!!), this riposte is really just to show you i am taking your information serious and trying to look at all the facts before coming back to you.
[/FONT]

The Message Bible?

awretchsavedbygrace — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:08:41 GMT

I just read a couple scriptures off the message Bible. I was deeply disturbed by the way its "translated". Can someone just give me some additional information about this translation. I am very ignorant when it comes to manuscripts and translations. :um: