King James Vs Septante.

[Thierry_rhodan]

My favorite Bible was indeed the King James Version ( 1611), but I have a loot of others like Ostervald, Segond , and catholic's one like the Crampon.
For the New testament will always take my King James.
But for the Old testament , will take also version inspired with the " Septante" stuff.
I know that the King James was near the Hebrew one ( have Zadoc Kahn 's one).
But please let's give some exemple ; 3 :

1/ 2 Samuel 24: 13 : Shall " Seven "years of famine come unto thee land ? ( KJ)

In the " Septante it's three years " so there will be no contradiction with :

1 chronicles 21:12 :three year's famine ....

2/ 2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahazia

In the "Septante" it's 22 so again there will be no contradiction with :

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahazia .

3/ 2 Chronicles 36 :9 : Jéhoiachim was eight years old when he began to reign

In the "Septante" it's 18, so again no contradiction with

2 Kings 24 :8 Jéhoiachim was eighteen years old .

And they are others exemple.

 

[Philip]

Do you mean the Septuagint?

 

[Thierry_rhodan]

Yah, Excuse me i'm french Native.
Happy to see an Orthodox here, i have great friends who pratice Hésychasm ,and Philocalie's stuff.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

The findings at Qumran support Septuagint readings versus the MT.

 

[Philip]

Yah, Excuse me i'm french Native.

No prob. Just wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing

Happy to see an Orthodox here.

Happy to be here.

The Orthodox have always favored the LXX (Septuagint) over the the Hebrew Texts.

 

[IrishJohan]

Here are two excellent websites you might wish to peruse on the Septuagint:

The Septuagint Online: http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

Notes on the Septuagint: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Enjoy!

Pax Christi,
John

 

[BrightCandle]

Thierry_rhodan:

I would use the KJV as your major study Bible for the OT and the NT, because the KJV was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into English, and other translations were considered only for comparision.

Brooks

 

[thereselittleflower]

Thierry_rhodan:

I would use the KJV as your major study Bible for the OT and the NT, because the KJV was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into English, and other translations were considered only for comparision.

Brooks

I have to say I am at a loss to understand how the KJV would be considered the best to use as a major study bible . . . you said that it wa translated directly from the Hebrew adn Greek manuscripts, but this does not really paint an accurate picture . .

The KJV New Testament was based on the Textus Recepticus . .which was virtually identical to Erasmus' Greel New Testament which had many problems:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The effect of the Textus Receptus on the accuracy of the King James Version[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The TR was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text. Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Due to the errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV were translated, the KJV contains some texts that are not consistent with Jesus' genuine teachings and other genuine New Testament teachings, as represented in the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament.

[/font]

There is much more about the TR here:

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#3

It is very interesting to note that the manuscripts used by Erasmus were mostly only a few centuries old, the oldest being about 500 (and this is the one he relied on the least) . .and he used 6 manuscripts . . .

The KJV NT is based on very young manuscriptus that were not compared to older ones . .

We now have ancient manuscripts to use for translation, and should not heavily rely on a translation that did not have the benefit of these ancient manuscripts, but instead relied on the TR which was full of errors.


Peace in Him!

 

[Thierry_rhodan]

I have a loot of Bible you know: Ostevald, Segond, Catholic's Crampon and others.
But let's me say you, that indeed the King James was my favorite ,of course take time to compare; but the King James version have a deep impact on my soul.
And for the New Testament, i think it's the better choice.
Was speaking about problems in the Old Testament.