[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / agatha / asmr / chicas / leftpol / strek / sw / v4c ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 270bce5645f133a⋯.jpg (18.49 KB, 331x499, 331:499, dbh.jpg)

b064c3 No.579882

Anyone know a good mostly literal translation of the Old Testament to pair with David Bentley Hart's New Testament?

006962 No.579888

File: b3704c859fafdf2⋯.png (379.33 KB, 658x720, 329:360, 1505927193850.png)

This post looks like blatant shilling anon…


b064c3 No.579891

>>579888

I just want a literal Old Testament in English


6379e2 No.579895

king james


b064c3 No.579900

>>579895

I've read that one twice now. I like the literary beauty, but now I'd rather read a more literal translation. Anyone like the NET?


e4f4df No.579904

>>579882

Try an interlinear bible, I always use one online when I want to check the greek. Also why this dude's translation?


3890b1 No.579906

File: 5de7f72a86f41a2⋯.jpg (105.33 KB, 1024x442, 512:221, translation-spectrum-high-….jpg)


948db9 No.579908

File: 9ac9e994def941a⋯.pdf (5.07 MB, Jay P. Green LITV KJ3 Bibl….pdf)

>>579900

The NET is meh, you should try the LITV.


b064c3 No.579910

>>579904

It’s a really excessively literal translation, I’ve seen it posted around here before


f0fd9d No.579915

>>579900

>Anyone like the NET?

yeah, that's my go-to translation

i read it on https://lumina.bible.org/


948db9 No.579916

File: beb72fb0fa19648⋯.png (325.28 KB, 396x540, 11:15, LITV INTLB1.png)

>>579908

>>579900

You can also get the LITV in interlinear form, but if you get it be warned that its a huge book.


fa1b51 No.579922

>>579916

Is there an interlinear translation from the Septuagint, rather than the Masoretic text?


948db9 No.579931


b064c3 No.579932

>>579922

I was actually gonna ask something similar. Anyone got a very literal Septuagint translation now? I'm probably gonna use either NET or LITV for Hebrew


948db9 No.579934


948db9 No.579935


3ce8b7 No.579941

>>579882

Young's Literal Translation (YLT), it's TR-based and very literal


8cb61e No.579945

File: 07f8e89399eb5c1⋯.jpg (38.19 KB, 600x600, 1:1, jew_basic.jpg)

>>579941

>TR-based


b064c3 No.579960

>>579945

I think you're confusing the TR with the MT. Not that there's anything wrong with the MT


478559 No.586417

>>579922

I have found one recently called "The Apostolic Bible Polyglot" it would be perfect but sadly it does not contain the Apocrypha. The website to purchase it on is www.apostolicbible.com


883198 No.586492

>>586465

"Are being saved" is exactly the tense used in the Koine to refer to salvation though (as expected from a literal translation), the KJV is the one that changed it here.


6a4736 No.586502

>>586492

Alright then, why does YLT and certain other translations leave it as "saved" and not "being saved" in Luke 13:23 and Revelation 21:24?

It should be consistent. NKJV does the same game, going half and half. Meanwhile, the MEV translates Luke 13:23 and the others wrong yet translates 2 Corinthians 2:15 correct, and the WEB which is another TR Bible, translates them all correct except it changes Acts 2:47 only.


6a4736 No.586508

>>586502

Oh I made one misstatement. None of those versions get Luke 13:23 wrong, it was the NASB and NIV that change that verse there.


795978 No.586526

>>579882

Douay-Rheims is your best bet by a huge margin


6a4736 No.586548

>>586526

It may get 1 Corinthians 1:18 and the others correct, but have you noticed how the DRB removes Jesus Christ from Ephesians 3:9 and Romans 1:16? What about where it shortens 1 John 5:13 and removes a whole sentence? Or where the DRB fails to say he was sacrificed for us in 1 Corinthians 5:7?

Ephesians 3:9

>KJV: which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

>DRB: which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:

1 John 4:3

>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>DRB: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God:

1 Timothy 3:16

>KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

>DRB: And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,

John 4:42

>KJV: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

>DRB: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.


ad7686 No.586591

>>586548

so basically hair-splitting


6a4736 No.586608

>>586591

It might not matter to you what God said but it matters to some of us.


ad7686 No.586629

>>586608

Ephesians 3:9

>et illuminare omnes, quæ sit dispensatio sacramenti absconditi a sæculis in Deo, qui omnia creavit:

1 John 4:3

>et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est, et hic est antichristus, de quo audistis quoniam venit, et nunc jam in mundo est.

1 Timothy 3:16

>Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, prædicatum est gentibus, creditum est in mundo, assumptum est in gloria.

John 4:42

>Et mulieri dicebant: Quia jam non propter tuam loquelam credimus: ipsi enim audivimus, et scimus quia hic est vere Salvator mundi.

Douay Rheims fully checks out in accuracy. I suppose adding to Sacred Scripture makes you feel better?


6a4736 No.586633

>>586629

Those are all the same error, mate


ad7686 No.586635

>>586633

God's never wrong.


6a4736 No.586638

>>586635

Were there seventy elders at the time of the Vulgate translation as well? These immortal councils of seventy just keep popping up, don't they. Going back to the first one of pharisees at Sinai and oral law of the scribes and pharisees. It's truly crazy how much has happened behind the scenes sometimes. and it's not like any of this was exposed at any point or anything.


ad7686 No.586642

>>586638

>sacred scripture is wrong, my (((sources))) are right

hehehe, sure rabbi


f0180f No.586645

>>586629

>>586635

>>586642

>Latin Vulgate = authentic word of God

Now that's a spicy meme


ad7686 No.586648

>>586645

>I decide what's the word of God! Not the Holy Spirit!

Anon, I…


6a4736 No.586650

>>586645

Hey at least he thinks it exists at all. I suppose that's better than most of them. Like the NASB guy with the usual meme chart that I see literally everywhere.


9d2eec No.586675

>>579891

In my opinion Rotherham's Emphasized Bible is hard to beat. It's probably better for the Old Testament than the New since in there he took the liberties to translate Satan as the adversary and raca as worthless one. Still pretty good though. There are significant differences between the first few editions of it from the 1st to the 3rd.

>The New Testament Critically Emphasised was first published in 1872. However, great changes occurred in textual criticism during the last half of the 19th century culminating in Brooke Foss Westcott's and Fenton John Anthony Hort's Greek text of the New Testament. This led Rotherham to revise his New Testament twice, in 1878 and 1897, to stay abreast of scholarly developments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasized_Bible

Proverbs 7

6 For, in the window of my house, through my lattice, I looked out; 7 And saw among the simple ones, discerned among the youths, A young man lacking sense; 8 Passing through the street, near her corner, and, on the way to her house, he sauntered along; 9 In the twilight, in the evening of the day, in the midst of the night, and the gloom; 10 And lo! a woman, came to meet him, attired as one unchaste, of a wily heart. 11 Boisterous, is she, and rebellious, In her house, abide not her feet; 12 Now outside, now in the broadways, and, near every corner, she lieth in wait: 13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and, embolding her face, she said to him: 14 Peace-offerings, are by me, to-day, have I paid my vows; 15 For this cause, came I forth to meet thee, to seek diligently thy face, and I have found thee: 16 Coverlets, have I spread on my couch of pleasure, dark-hued stuffs, of the yarn of Egypt; 17 I have sprinkled my bed, with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon: 18 Come! let us take our fill of endearments, until morning, let us delight ourselves with caresses; 19 For the husband is not in his house, he hath gone on a journey afar; 20 A bag of silver, hath he taken in his hand, On the day of the full moon, will he enter his house. 21 She turneth him aside, with her great persuasiveness, - with the flattery of her lips, she compelleth him: 22 Going after her instantly, as an ox, to the slaughter, he entereth, and, as in fetters, unto the correction of a fool. 23 Until an arrow cleaveth his liver, as a bird hasteth into a snare, and knoweth not, that, for his life, it is!


f0180f No.586779

>>586648

>the pope is the Holy Spirit


73ad37 No.586809

>>586548

St Jerome's Vulgate is a very useful and unique scriptural source as he translated from texts that are no longer available and have been lost to time including Matthew's original Hebrew/Aramaic gospel.

No bible will be perfect but an ideal modern bible would incorporate all the textual traditions (vulgate, Textus receptus, majority text etc.) to get the most accurate picture.

In regards to OP the DR is still best for OT as it is the only literal english translation of the Septuagint (via vulgate and critically analysed against Hebrew manuscripts too).


73ad37 No.586811

>>586779

Bearing false witness is a sin. The seat of Peter is the rock from which the holy spirit pours out for the visible church


f0180f No.586815

>>586811

>The seat of Peter is the rock from which the holy spirit pours out

heresy

>>586809

>that are no longer available and have been lost to time

Then it's very not useful because our original language manuscripts go farther back than the vulgate

>Matthew's original Hebrew/Aramaic gospel

Matthew wrote in Greek

>the Septuagint

The Hebrew is the authentic Old Testament.


9d2eec No.586851

>>586809

>Matthew's original Hebrew/Aramaic gospel

I posted something about that in this thread.

https://8ch.net/christian/res/581513.html#581535


9d2eec No.586862

File: ab898c5bec27c8d⋯.jpg (178.04 KB, 1585x399, 1585:399, Untitled1.jpg)

>>586815

The 10th century Masoretic texts exhibit abridgements of verses and omissions when compared to older Greek manuscripts and Dead Sea scrolls and even Samaritan manuscripts of similar age to the oldest Hebrew ones.

Then there's the subject of what is actually used to quote in New Testament texts. Much of the classical apostolic tradition in the world would seem to inherited the textual tradition akin to that of the Greeks rather than the 16th century compilation of the Hebrew Bible. The syntax however is common between all Hebrew language texts due to being the same language.


f0180f No.586891

>>586862

>The 10th century Masoretic texts exhibit abridgements of verses and omissions when compared to older Greek manuscripts

The Greek manuscripts are a translation. They are not relevant.

>Dead Sea scrolls

The Dead Sea scrolls prove a general reliability of the Masoretic Text, see the Isaiah Scroll.

>Then there's the subject of what is actually used to quote in New Testament texts

It's usually the Septuagint, but that doesn't really matter considering A. the apostles wrote in Greek so it makes sense for them to quote the Greek translation, and B. the New Testament doesn't say anything about textual criticism.


9d2eec No.586915

>>586891

>the New Testament doesn't say anything about textual criticism.

not relevant

Considering the greater elaboration in their verses and their agreement with fragments and complete manuscripts of neighboring periods along with their age.


458ae6 No.586931

>>586809

Interestingly, the French "Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible" actually uses every source available to try to recreate what the proto-Masoretic must've looked like.


9d2eec No.586943

>>586931

The best thing would be one that follows Hebrew syntax as closely as possible while incorporating variant verses from the Septuagingt, DSS, and the Pentateuch and for it to be formatted according to Judaic parashah divisions.

I'd personally like to remodify proper nouns and demonyms to more accurately reflect the original tongues. The tetragrammaton should also be transliterated as YHWH and boldended in imitation of the Jewish torah writing customs as opposed to using "Jehovah"


f2bc30 No.586952

>>586943

>as opposed to using "Jehovah"

uh, what bibles have you been using


6a4736 No.586960

>>586862

>Dead Sea scrolls

This nonsense is neverending. The word of God clearly states in Isaiah 59:21 that his words will never depart from any generation. This is again said elsewhere. So where were the DSS until the 1940's? Oh that's right, nobody had them. So why would that be of any use in knowing what the word of God is? It's nothing more than a curiosity in that regard. Like looking at a recently uncovered Jefferson bible that was lost for centuries. Same with the alexandrian texts, to an even greater extent. There's a reason they were lost, it's because God did not preserve them. And if you don't think it's true, why do you even care? I can think of some reasons but none of them are good.

>>586943

>The tetragrammaton should also be transliterated as YHWH

You realize that the New Testament itself translates the tetragrammaton as Lord right? ΚΥΡΙΟΣ

For instance, Matthew 3:3 translates the tetragrammaton from Isaiah 40:3 as Lord. I don't see the problem with that. Also if you're going to endorse an OT, at least make sure it doesn't put the name of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12. That's not a joke.

>((Jewish torah writing customs))

You mean the later jews who wrote the talmud? Are you confusing them with Israel again?


e3ce1c No.586967

>>586891

When compared to the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah, the Masoretic Text apparently leaves out several references to the "Son of Man".


9d2eec No.587012

>>586952

I've seen some bibles use it. In English the ASV is one. JW's probably didn't create that transliteration if that's what you're implying.

>>586960

Well using that logic the Vulgate becomes a valid source text as well when comparing the prevalence of Erasmus's source texts to the Vulgate at the time.

>You realize that the New Testament itself translates the tetragrammaton as Lord right? ΚΥΡΙΟΣ

I propose it solely for OT use. Joshua/Jeshua and Jesus are also spelled the same in Greek.

You have problems with the Greek text but not their translation conventions and are fine with Hebrew texts but not their orthographic conventions? Sounds pretty inconsistent and arbitrary to me.

Also it wasn't any Christians that compiled the Masoretic text. I'd prefer to learn and embrace the attestable historical traditions of the pertinent cultures than to follow the deviations of some much later observer that are probably due to reasons of material circumstance than anything spiritual.


9d2eec No.587014

Fundagelical shill troll logic is Kabbalistic just like them.


6a4736 No.587016

>>587012

>when comparing the prevalence of Erasmus's source texts to the Vulgate at the time.

Wait a second though, how are you calculating the prevalence of the word of God at that time? Do you think it's pure happenstance what survives? That what survives today is a 1:1 representation of what was? Sounds pretty downright naive to me.

>Well using that logic the Vulgate becomes a valid source text as well

Well no it doesn't, because if you read Isaiah 59:21 again, you will notice it says the words that were put in his mouth. So therefore, unless Isaiah was prophesying in Latin, it can't be that.

>You have problems with the Greek text

Like what? Do you mean the translation of the Old Testament or do you mean the original New Testament?

>but not their translation conventions

I don't think it's just a convention, I think we should observe it as what it is, the God-breathed scripture.

>and are fine with Hebrew texts but not their orthographic conventions?

You mean your orthographic conventions. Yeah you can transliterate words if you want but it wouldn't be a translation then would it? Why pretend like there is no valid translation given. It sounds like you want to sidestep the facts about how the NT treats this. Almost like all those judaizers in the hebrew roots movement right now.

>Also it wasn't any Christians that compiled the Masoretic text.

Are you pretending the Masoretes compiled it? Have you not read in 2 Timothy 3:15 that it was already compiled by then? Or is that another thing you don't believe to be true.

>I'd prefer to learn and embrace the attestable historical traditions

Sounds good. Matthew 24:25 attests to the fact that his words will never pass away, which drastically narrows the possible valid traditions.

>of the ((pertinent cultures))

Please don't tell me you're gonna start reciting the later jews traditions, the same guys who wrote the Talmud.


6a4736 No.587019

>>587016

>Matthew 24:25

Sorry, I meant 24:35. But yeah verse 25 is good too.


9d2eec No.587032

File: 5b87beefedc121e⋯.png (1.33 MB, 1692x1386, 94:77, 1510956011451.png)

>>587016

>The existence of cohesion in this post is unsubstantiable

The Greek OT also uses theos for the tetragrammaton and some manuscripts have ΠΙΠΙ or ΙΑΩ.

Churches, synagogues, and baptisms didn't exist as exclusive nouns at the time the scriptures were written either.

>already compiled by then?

Compilations were around before Jesus' crucifixion.


6a4736 No.587037

>>587032

>Compilations were around before Jesus' crucifixion.

So then why don't you use them instead of relying on a Latin translation of a Greek translation? I don't see why you wouldn't use the originals. I mean, they're the originals for crying out loud.

>The Greek OT

That's not the original.


9d2eec No.587043

>>587037

>post-Talmudic 15th century abridgements

>original

>That's not the original

neither is ΚΥΡΙΟΣ


6a4736 No.587050

>>587043

Guess what though, if it's in another language, that means it can't be from the originals no matter what you come up with, that means someone translated it. Or else you would have to be implying that those "manuscripts" that you mentioned were originally written by the original prophet in Greek. Such as Isaiah and Daniel personally speaking and writing in Greek, and so on.

>neither is ΚΥΡΙΟΣ

Please don't start with this peshitta aramaic gospel stuff, it's really beneath all of us to engage in this. You are attempting to suggest that according to your narrative, not long after Matthew 24:35 was written, that the gospel was subsequently lost for all time. No, more like someone tried to make a peshitta translation of the original, the original which is in Koine Greek like the other 26 books.


9d2eec No.587052

>>587050

>Please don't start with this peshitta aramaic gospel………………..

No what I was referring to Kurios and Lord not being original either unlike YHWH which is present in the Masoretic text.

It goes beyond Greek though and involves all translations of the classical period.


6a4736 No.587055

>>587052

>No what I was referring to Kurios and Lord not being original either

So the New Testament isn't inspired by the same God who gave the Old Testament?


9d2eec No.587057

>>587055

It wasn't written in the same language place or period other biblical texts were written.


ad7686 No.587077

>baptists use the true bible!

>as proclaimed by rabbis and talmudists

ah, so this explains the rampant zionism/dual-covenant theology inherent in most baptist setups

even Erasmus rejected you folks

>We are dealing with this: Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves – indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion[51] you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before.[52]


226d1a No.599070

>>579882

Robert Alters


01badb No.599371

>>599070

Are you the anon who started a thread re: him recently that got deleted (for seemingly no reason)? I was going to respond to say I wasn't/am not aware of any particular translation works but have had "the art of biblical narrative" on my to-read list for a while after hearing Tim Keller reference it in one of his sermons, some pretty good comments by people on here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/398085.The_Art_of_Biblical_Narrative




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / agatha / asmr / chicas / leftpol / strek / sw / v4c ]