"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
According to The Way International - only they can and by taking their Master Course in Greek - buyer beware...PaulSacramento wrote:So, WHO decides what IS original or inserted in the greek texts?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
I would assume that we should go with the OLDEST available texts, correct?
We are NOT talking about the OT here, but the NT.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:I am speaking of the NT
Your comment on the LXX ( when we were speaking of the NT)through me off that is why I was confused.1stjohn0666 wrote:My Septuigint does NOT contain NT scrip. I do have the NT in "common" Greek.
Septuagint - Is it a Reliable Translation?
Copied from this article: http://www.septuagint.net/Septuagint.htm
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.