1stjohn0666 wrote:The translators inserted "existed" in the text. It is not in the Greek. I see it as Jesus is a higher rank as the Greek word "protos" implies
So, WHO decides what IS original or inserted in the greek texts?
I would assume that we should go with the OLDEST available texts, correct?
According to The Way International - only they can and by taking their Master Course in Greek - buyer beware...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
I fully agree that the older the document is the more reliable it is. Now I love my Septuigint LXX but it has many points that fail in translation. I have friends who do speak Semitic languages, some are of the Islamic faith. They are better able to help me understand the texts of the OT compared with my Septuigint.
1stjohn0666 wrote:I fully agree that the older the document is the more reliable it is. Now I love my Septuigint LXX but it has many points that fail in translation. I have friends who do speak Semitic languages, some are of the Islamic faith. They are better able to help me understand the texts of the OT compared with my Septuigint.
The oldest copies of the NT books and letters are all in koine greek and the LXX has no NT writings at all, since it is only the greek translation of the OT and was done centuries before.
1stjohn0666 wrote:My Septuigint does NOT contain NT scrip. I do have the NT in "common" Greek.
Your comment on the LXX ( when we were speaking of the NT)through me off that is why I was confused.
I have a few interlinears and copies of the Codex Vacticanus and Sinaiticus.
Those two codexs are the oldest "complete" codexs.
I also have copies of SOME of the oldest copies of the various texts that pre-date those codexs.
Have you read the works of Bruce Metzger?
john666 there was no conspiracy and the bible was not corrupted by time as you made referrence too in other post in hope of persuading people to your strange POV regarding the word Begotten and the Septuagint being best and only text... This tactic of yours is so very often used by all the cults that the people here need to be reminded of your intent.
Have people break the first commandment of the Ten Commandments - worshiping a mere creature being... as well as a host of other things.
One thing the oldest Septuagint version of Malachi 2:10, has for it - reads thusly: "Do you not all have one father? Has not one God created you? Why do you deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of your fathers?"
Which is by the way, in correct grammar sync with the rest of the entire book of Malachi and context as Mal 2:4, 8 reveals the whom was speaking... It appears the anti-Trinitarians who authored the MA text did something that you would support.
The underlined quote below is from the article cited below it:
The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy.
Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.
Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No.
It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.)
None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine.
The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy.
Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture.
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
