Not in the Greek and Hebrew He does not change.... Somethings can get lost in the translation. Got to get back to an exacting rendering. That requires great dedication and long hours of study. And, having the humility to make corrections of earlier efforts when need be. You do not find that too often.. Do we?Where in scripture does it say God changes ? I’ll wait. Because language and people change does not mean that all change is good or to be copied.
they are infallible, but not either inspired, nor inerrant, as that is what KJVO folks believe reagarding TR/Kjv, , but I do not!You have to believe in some form of derivative inspiration? I'm not saying translations are inspired, I am saying that where the texts are accurately reproduced in other languages, they are just as much "The Word of God" as the originals.
I am CT. but do also use MT and LXX!
There are enough areas of disagreement in our positions to warrant further discussion if you are interested to adjourning to a more appropriate forum. Just let me know...Your view of the LXX still depends largely on accepting extant Hebrew as being superior. Those who take this view examine the evidence differently. The best source text for the LXX is found in Codex Alexandrinus. It the text truest to most any ancient writing referencing the LXX. It is the text that Augustine appealed to when begging Jerome to abandon his ego driven quest to Latinize the Scriptures. More ancient witness to old Greek sources follow their own paths. Much the same has happened to ancient Hebrew fragments.
If you would only consider the words found in Codex Alexandrinus as being true to the LXX, I believe your opinion would change.
There has been extensive analysis of ancient semitic sources. At a fundamental level, I can't help but believe there were documents that came directly from the hands of Moses. There had to have been documents that came directly from the hand of David. I can't see myself ever abandoning that position. I believe it is safe to say that the construct of the ancient semitic language found on those particular documents is different than the extant MT. How different? I can't help but believe it is substantially different in construct. I believe reasonable thought would require such a view.
If this is true, then there is no reason whatsoever to see a superior source in the MT.
Bracketing out ideas about inspiration, which are not directly related to text-critical analyses, we can agree that the writings now collected under the banner of the "Old Testament" by Christians were predominantly composed in Hebrew with a few sections in Aramaic. We have no access to these original compositions, however, only to much later text and manuscript traditions... among these is the LXX, which is a collection of ancient translations of these texts into and a few new compositions in Greek. While there is evidence that some of the differences owe to the translators themselves, in many cases they reflect a sound translation of a variant Hebrew text. In other words, in the Second Temple period -- which is as far back as the oldest manuscripts found at Qumran take us -- there were several different forms of the Hebrew text in circulation. This fact should not be surprising since we find the text of the Greek New Testament is in a similar state of plurality... the difference is in the extent of these variances -- there are far more and significant ones within the Hebrew Bible than the New Testament. Since the former is a much longer text and has been copied over many more centuries, this fact should not be surprising either. One should not and, indeed, cannot assume that what became the dominant form of the Hebrew text (MT) represents the earliest recoverable form of these writings. As I laid out in the post to which you responded, LXX is at times a valuable witness to recovering this form...The Hebrew OT text is what was inspired to be recorded down////
Could the person who does this please post a link to it in here?Since there are now three of us expressing interest in these matters and none of us are KJV Onlyists, I do recommend we take discussion to a more appropriate forum... others are, of course, welcome to join us.
I am most familiar with the JST and I concur that it is not a "legit translation" -- indeed, it is nothing more than a revision of the KJV in the direction of the beliefs Smith held to in the early 1830s. In purporting to restore under divine inspiration "plain and precious things" deliberately excised from the Bible in the post-apostolic period, Smith has been exposed as a liar with the discoveries at Qumran, many of which predate the advent of Christianity altogether and give no support to his idiosyncratic manipulations. Smith's theology grew increasingly bizarre and his frauds even more brazen as the decade wore on... he was soon pretending to translate Egyptian papyri, claiming they contained the writings of Abraham when he was sojourning there. Hieroglyphs were then in the process of being deciphered by Egyptologists and his "translation" was eventually exposed as nonsense, the papyri being nothing more than standard funerary texts. That people can take Smith seriously after all this is rather bewildering to me... such a tragic denial of facts is similar to what we see here among the KJV Onlyists.I do notr see the NWT, Joseph Smith revised, nor sda Clear Word as being legit translations!
Oops! Hyper-brevity strikes again! I should have left in:I do notr see the NWT, Joseph Smith revised, nor sda Clear Word as being legit translations!
What about women? I've studied under some excellent female biblical studies profs...Oops! Hyper-brevity strikes again! I should have left in:
.. the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession,... is the word of God.