Which translation do you use and why?

[AliOgg]

Guess you guys get technical, bare with me I'll catch up eventually, if it's the Lord's Will, personally the simpler it is the more I take it in. You may be old timers but this is a serious question to me.What is LXX? or should I look elsewhere

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[theend0218]

AliOgg, don't feel bad. It's like learning a new language. The LXX references a Greek translation of the OT. The name, as posted, means 70 - you find it posted as The Septuagint also, which references The Seventy (but it might have been 72, depending on which version of the story you accept). The translation was supposedly made by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria. My history is a bit rough, but I believe it was made in the 3rd and/or 2nd century BC for the Greek speaking Jews scattered about. Hope this helps. Do a google search if you want or need more info.

 

[AVBunyan]

Bad history again.

Please give factual history instead of conjecture. The Septuagint is far older than any NT book.

Very typical response when confronted by such work. A man reasearches and writes out 3 detailed posts and all you can say is what you said. Very typical - very sad - you responded exactly how I expected you to.

Sure can't wait to see the other responses.

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

I use the KJV for Bible study. It's easy to read for me. Otherwise I use the NLT and NRSV.

 

[JohnJones]

All I know is that my priest sells two in the book store, one is Brenton's, the only english one available I believe, but he uses something else, all in Greek. I do not believe it is based on Brenton's text because he has pulled it out to compare to Brenton's, and at times disapprovingly shook his head.
I'll have to check with him about it.

I'd love to hear what he says.

 

[Soft Rains]

Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document.

 

[Borealis]

Very typical response when confronted by such work. A man reasearches and writes out 3 detailed posts and all you can say is what you said. Very typical - very sad - you responded exactly how I expected you to.

Sure can't wait to see the other responses.

At least he responded to those posts; no one has bothered replying to mine, despite my posting of clear evidence that Ruckman is wrong.

 

[Andyman_1970]

What is the KJV only thought regarding the Septuagint?

 

[AVBunyan]

What is the KJV only thought regarding the Septuagint?

Will Kinney is a KJV only - he just posted 3 detailed posts on the subject.

Also, Borealis - though Will did not reference your post directly his 3 posts responded to the thinking of your post. Though I cannot speak for bro. Will I feel he will be more than glad to respond to your post if asked to or if you have any thoughts on his recent 3 posts.

God bless

 

[hoser]

The Catholic Church decided to insert these book and pronounce them "inspired of God"... Ed

The Catholic Church DID NOT decide to "insert" these books. These books were ALWAYS part of the Christian Bible ever since it was cannonized by the Catholic Church in the late 300's A.D. The seven books that are not in the protestant bibles were in the Septuigant old testament bibles that the Apostles used. Any where else in the world besides the U.S. the "Bible" would be the Catholic Bible, and the protestant bible would be referred to as the "protestant bible". It is Martin Luther that pulled these books that were always in the Bible out, because they disagreed with his own theology. This is fact. Learn it.

 

[AVBunyan]

It is Martin Luther that pulled these books that were always in the Bible out, because they disagreed with his own theology. This is fact. Learn it.

If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.

Yes, Rome always accepted those books but Bible-believing saints never did accept them as being anything other than historical or "interesting" readings. Bible-believing saints never accepted them as inspired scripture.

God bless

 

[greeker57married]

AVBunyan

I believe the AV to be inspired for several reasons:

1. The two lines (Egyptian [modern versions] and the Antioch line [AV}) read completely different – they both (all modern versions vs. AV) cannot be inspired.

2. The preeminence that AV gives to the deity of Christ along with the consistent upholding of the doctrines of the faith whereas the modern versions are inconsistent and consistently attack the deity of Christ – tons of documentation on this subject.

3. II Tim. 3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration – I have a post on this subject posted here already so I will not go into detail here. But I believe the AV to be scripture so in order for it to be called scripture then it must be inspired – again they all cannot be inspired for all read differently.

4. The impact the AV has had on the lives of sinners and history – covered before. I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 and there was no AV1611 prior to 1611 but the texts the AV is based upon has been used and blessed by God prior to 1611 whereas the other line from Egypt has not been blessed – just compare the fruits of both.

5. The fact that nobody has yet to prove a real error in the AV whereas there are many blunders and false doctrines taught by the modern versions – my ex. On this forum has been Mic. 5:2 which nobody has sufficiently explained yet.

1. You are making an asumption that cannot be backed up by textual evdence. Inspiration is not in the translation, but the original manuscripts. Many of the Modern Verisons read differently in places because of the variations in the earlier text from the Textus Receptus. Which I know that you cannot accept.

2. Your statement that the modern versions attack the deity of Christ is unfounded.

3. Let me get this straight because you believe the AV to be called Scripture it must be inspired. Surely you do not believe 2 Timothy 3:16 to be speaking of the AV do you? Surely you realize it was refering to original manuscripts.

4. God blessing the use of the AV, is not necessarily proof that it is inspired or inerrant. God does and can use other translations.

5. The fact that not one has proved and error in the AV. The reason you say this is because you do not except the earlier Alexanderian text. This is a convenient denial of any errors in the AV, which do exist.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[Philip]

My history is a bit rough, but I believe it was made in the 3rd and/or 2nd century BC for the Greek speaking Jews scattered about.

The dates of the translation are roughly correct. (The exact dates aren't known). I think the original translation was done so that the scrolls could be kept in the Great Library of Alexandria. However, the Greek translation was widely circulated and used by Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine.

There are many places where the Greek LXX and the Hebrew MT disagree. It was often thought that the LXX had errors in its translation. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that there were Hebrew texts that agreed with the Greek LXX. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the term LXX has been used to refer to this textual tradition in addition to the Greek translation of that tradition.

 

[greeker57married]

Philip

The dates of the translation are roughly correct. (The exact dates aren't known). I think the original translation was done so that the scrolls could be kept in the Great Library of Alexandria. However, the Greek translation was widely circulated and used by Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine.

There are many places where the Greek LXX and the Hebrew MT disagree. It was often thought that the LXX had errors in its translation. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that there were Hebrew texts that agreed with the Greek LXX. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the term LXX has been used to refer to this textual tradition in addition to the Greek translation of that tradition.

I agree with you Philip. The LXX was produced because of the the spread of the Greek culture and language by the conquest of Alexander the Great. These people had become Greek speaking. So there was a need for the Old Testament to be translated into the Greek language.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[Borealis]

If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.

Nope. Luther's theology differed from the Church, and when he was debating doctrines such as Purgatory he insisted that they weren't scriptural, then went to the Christ-rejecting Jewish canon to 'prove' himself right.

Yes, Rome always accepted those books but Bible-believing saints never did accept them as being anything other than historical or "interesting" readings. Bible-believing saints never accepted them as inspired scripture.

True. Of course, there's no evidence that there was ever such a thing as a 'Bible-believing Christian' until Luther's time. Or at least, there's less evidence of that than there is that the Septuagint is older then Christ.

 

[AliOgg]

AliOgg, don't feel bad. It's like learning a new language. The LXX references a Greek translation of the OT. The name, as posted, means 70 - you find it posted as The Septuagint also, which references The Seventy (but it might have been 72, depending on which version of the story you accept). The translation was supposedly made by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria. My history is a bit rough, but I believe it was made in the 3rd and/or 2nd century BC for the Greek speaking Jews scattered about. Hope this helps. Do a google search if you want or need more info.

thank you for a simple compassionate answer

And God Bless All Gods Children.

 

[AliOgg]

Dear friends,
What if every translation or copy of the word of God that we have is not 100% accurate, who can know all that God knows? If a bible is so old that it falls appart into 2 or 3 pieces is one of these pieces not still the word of God even though it appears to be less than a complete copy.if the New Testament is printed on it's own it is still the Word of God even though the Old Testament is not there.
There is always more my friends that God can teach and man can learn.

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[theend0218]

I heard someone say "there is enough gospel in any of the modern translations to save the world if the world would but believe." I believe this to be true. I personally enjoy the old RSV and the NASV myself. Thanks for an enjoyable discussion.

 

[JohnJones]

If Martin pulled these books it wasn't because they disageed with his theoglogy it was because they disagreed with scripture.

And also because JEROME, the CATHOLIC translator of the Latin Vulgate denied their inspiration but included them in the Vulgate for purely historical purposes, saying that the church forms no doctrine from them but they are used for edification and instruction in manner as well as understanding the Jews of Jesus' time.

 

[Oblio]

And also because JEROME, the CATHOLIC translator of the Latin Vulgate denied their inspiration but included them in the Vulgate for purely historical purposes, saying that the church forms no doctrine from them but they are used for edification and instruction in manner as well as understanding the Jews of Jesus' time.

That is rather Roman Catholic of Luther, to ascribe to one person the infallibity to chose his canon. Or perhaps he was establishing a precedent of picking and choosing those things he agreed with to be the gospel truth.