Which Bible Should We Trust?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206775' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:14 AM']I would argue against that to a degree. While I can't read unpointed text very easily, it can be done. Just as we can read hieroglyphs even though no vowels were written. Hebrew is based on a triconsonantal root system, so every word with those 3 consonants is related. The root itself might be a noun, then add a prefix to make it verb, for example. The vowels that are in there now have been taken from modern Hebrew, I believe, in order to make it readable (where in Middle Egyptian we just add 'e's as needed to make it readable). The Septuagint is great, don't get me wrong, but don't discount the ability to read the Hebrew just yet.

But I suppose that's a bit off-topic. As for translations go, I would love it if more of use could read the Hebrew and Greek. I think people need to read a real translation, not a paraphrase, like the Message is. The Jerusalem Bible is my new favorite translation; I'd actually never been exposed to it until moving here, but it's great. [/quote]

I would disagree with your conclusion on several basis's.

1.) After it wasn initially translated, those Jewish scholars [and Christian ones too] proclaimed it to be a severely flawed translation, while the Septuigent was translated by Hellinized Jews from the original text and was far more accuate.

2.) You can always add vowels, but again you're guessing and basing that upon a modern form of the language, not the original. Proof that this wouldn't work are in the differences in Aramaic Dialect that the Syriac Orthodox Church currently uses, and the difference between Egyptian Arabic and Traditional Arabic.

Reza

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206798' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:52 PM']I would disagree with your conclusion on several basis's.

1.) After it wasn initially translated, those Jewish scholars [and Christian ones too] proclaimed it to be a severely flawed translation, while the Septuigent was translated by Hellinized Jews from the original text and was far more accuate.

2.) You can always add vowels, but again you're guessing and basing that upon a modern form of the language, not the original. Proof that this wouldn't work are in the differences in Aramaic Dialect that the Syriac Orthodox Church currently uses, and the difference between Egyptian Arabic and Traditional Arabic.

Reza[/quote]

What I'm saying about the vowels is that you don't need vowels in order to know the word and what it says. For example, when I'm translating Middle Egyptian, I don't need the vowels to know what the word is. Can I pronounce it as an Egyptian would? No, of course not. But I don't need to speak it. The same applies to ancient Hebrew, we can read it.

I would like to see where the scholars said the Hebrew version was flawed, and which Hebrew version. Not trying to attack or anything, but I'm curious, as a scholar. I use the BHS, which does have footnotes about the Septuagint to cross-reference. It is taken from the Leningrad codex, and I think some might be from the Aleppo codex, at least in footnotes; the Leningrad dates to the 11th century, I believe, and the Aleppo to the 10th, unless I'm mistaken (quite possible ) Most scholars I know regard it to be quite accurate, and it is very widely used by scholars, as far as I know. There are earlier versions, though, that are not as accurate, so I can see what you mean with that. I personally think translations should look at both, but that's my opinion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206570' date='Mar 1 2007, 06:32 PM']Yuo were baptised so you are a member of the Body of Christ. The Church is the organization of believers set up by Jesus.[/quote]

[quote name='The Catechsim of Pope St. Pius X']6 Q. Is the dignity of the Christian Priesthood a great dignity?
A. The dignity of the Christian Priesthood is great indeed, because of the two-fold power which Jesus Christ has conferred upon it — that over His real body and that over [b]His mystical body, or the Church[/b]; and because of the divine mission committed to priests to lead men to eternal life.[/quote]

The mystical body of Christ IS the Church and therefore those outside of the Church are NOT part of the mystical body of Christ.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1206995' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:10 PM']The mystical body of Christ IS the Church and therefore those outside of the Church are NOT part of the mystical body of Christ.[/quote]
Gotta love those religious spirits. So St. Thomas More, you think I'm going to burn in hell. I would say, when we're both in heaven, you'd be surprised, but somehow I think God won't offend you with that sight. . .

After all, there will be many, many Catholics, protestants, muslims who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ and believe in his deity, Jews who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, and many others.

[quote name='Mark 9:38-40']And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is on our part.[/quote]

[quote name='Luke 9:49-50']And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.[/quote]

Seems like Jesus didn't really care if you were part of a particular group. If you cast Demons out in his name, you're for him and his church. And if he is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, than I guess he wouldn't really care if you are a part of a particular group today.

Edited March 3, 2007 by FullTruth

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206907' date='Mar 2 2007, 01:39 PM']What I'm saying about the vowels is that you don't need vowels in order to know the word and what it says. For example, when I'm translating Middle Egyptian, I don't need the vowels to know what the word is. Can I pronounce it as an Egyptian would? No, of course not. But I don't need to speak it. The same applies to ancient Hebrew, we can read it.

I would like to see where the scholars said the Hebrew version was flawed, and which Hebrew version. Not trying to attack or anything, but I'm curious, as a scholar. I use the BHS, which does have footnotes about the Septuagint to cross-reference. It is taken from the Leningrad codex, and I think some might be from the Aleppo codex, at least in footnotes; the Leningrad dates to the 11th century, I believe, and the Aleppo to the 10th, unless I'm mistaken (quite possible ) Most scholars I know regard it to be quite accurate, and it is very widely used by scholars, as far as I know. There are earlier versions, though, that are not as accurate, so I can see what you mean with that. I personally think translations should look at both, but that's my opinion.[/quote]

1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza

[FullTruth]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207056' date='Mar 2 2007, 09:53 PM']1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza[/quote]
Reza

First of all, there are things in the Jewish Publication Society Bible that no other Bible will plainly spell out. Like the Genesis 3:15 scripture concerning the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It isn't Christ that is to defeat the enemy, it is us. We need to put the Devil underneath our feet. I thank God that he gave us Jesus Christ to do that.

Second of all, if you read Genesis 6 in the Jewish Publication Society Bible, it becomes an entirely different chapter. You will see one word, and when you read it, I dare you to Google it.

A teaching of the Roman Church totally contradicts this teaching, and therefore leaves you powerless to the things the word in Genesis 6 describe.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1207062' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:00 PM']Reza

First of all, there are things in the Jewish Publication Society Bible that no other Bible will plainly spell out. Like the Genesis 3:15 scripture concerning the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It isn't Christ that is to defeat the enemy, it is us. We need to put the Devil underneath our feet. I thank God that he gave us Jesus Christ to do that.

Second of all, if you read Genesis 6 in the Jewish Publication Society Bible, it becomes an entirely different chapter. You will see one word, and when you read it, I dare you to Google it.

A teaching of the Roman Church totally contradicts this teaching, and therefore leaves you powerless to the things the word in Genesis 6 describe.[/quote]

I wouldn't deny that the JPSB has different messages, but what I would deny is its authenticity. I dont trust those of the Jewdaic faith much, in regards to Christianity. Their credibility was compromised at Jamnia.

Reza

[FullTruth]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207132' date='Mar 3 2007, 12:00 AM']I wouldn't deny that the JPSB has different messages, but what I would deny is its authenticity. I dont trust those of the Jewdaic faith much, in regards to Christianity. Their credibility was compromised at Jamnia.

Reza[/quote]
It's funny you say that. Messianic Jews use it a lot.

That's how I learned about it. My Mentor and I are so passionate about learning the word of God in it's most pure form, that when we heard about the JPS old testament translation, we had to get ahold of it. We learned about it from a Messianic Jewish friend my mentor meet on a message board, like this one.

Their scriptures which testify of the Christ are very accurate, and there are messages that come from it that when you learn what is truly going on, you know God had his hand on the JPS translation.

It doesn't have the new testament though. For that, I go back to the King James Bible, because it is very good.

Like I said. Download the JPS bible and bible reading software, read Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 6:4, then Google the Second word of Genesis 6:4 + "Seed of the Serpent" and see what you get. It will open up your eyes.

There is a grand conspiracy, which comes from Satan, to deny us the heritage God has given us. He doesn't want us to know who we are in him, so he can continue to destroy humanity, one life at a time.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1207056' date='Mar 3 2007, 02:53 AM']1.) I'm not sure if you're a linguist but if you dont have the vowels in most languages, it's really not possible to understand it. It's not like English, it's very different. Not having vowels could be the difference between several different words, specially with Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew [as the Bible was written]. I'm a Copt, if you didn't know, and Copt is pretty much impossible to read if letters are missing.

2.) I dont have links to the various scholars condemning such a text but I'm sure if you do searches on google.com or something you could find them.

Reza[/quote]

In most languages I would agree. I did not know you are a Copt, but I do know that Coptic is the descendant of the Egyptian language and is most closely related to demotic. I do not know demotic & Coptic yet, but maybe I will at some point. I understand that Coptic uses the Greek alphabet, with some changes. Like I said, I don't know demotic, the closest Egyptian language to Coptic; it developed in the 25th dynasty, and I don't study the Late Period. I'll let you know when I find more. I myself am an Egyptologist, but I love learning languages and pick up ancient languages fairly quickly.

Hebrew & Egyptian are actually quite different, but I have studied both. The similarity is that they use roots as the basis for words. In Hebrew for example, לדבר and דבר are from the same root, dbr, for 'word'. The one on the left is the verb form 'speak'. The root consonants determine the root meaning of the word, and the vowels only distinguish its part of speech a bit further. Hebrew is not like English; the consonants themselves can point to which vowel will follow (especially true in the case of vav & yodh). The vowels can help, and the Leningrad Codex was a pointed text from Masoretic tradition, but it can be read without them, it just takes more practice. Even if the verb form doesn't add another consonant, you can tell it's a verb by its position and usage. Oh, and modern Hebrew doesn't write the vowels, either. Check out the newspaper Ha'Aretz.

In Egyptian, similar rules apply. hqr (there should be a point under the h to make it emphatic) can mean either to be hungry or the hungry person. The consonants don't change, and we don't know the vowels. I can easily tell which is which, however, by its position in the sentence (verbs come first in the sentence and are followed by the subject), and by the determinative at the end. So yes, in most languages vowels are absolutely necessary to determine which word it is, but in a language based on roots, it's a little different.

As for the google search, I did find some things about earlier manuscripts, but I also found scholarly praises for the BHS, which is what most scholars now use and what most translators use for the Bible (in addition to the Septuagint).

[TruthSeeker777]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1206707' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:14 AM']Dear author,

I find it quite absurd that you would even consider "which bible we should trust" as a valid question when your answer ended with King James.

Nevermind that most protestants today recognize that the books of Wisdom, and Tobit and others that the KJV do not include are in fact canonical. In fact, even the Jews use the ancient "Catholic" books in their own Canon.

Where is the proof that their texts merit such authentication you might ask? Well, how about it is a well known fact now that not all Psalms were written by Jews, nor in Hebrew, nor even in Jerusalem. Thus, it is not necessary that any book be written in Hebrew to be considered canonical. Therefore, books, such as Maccabees, ought to be considered in the KJV because because of their merit in word, not because of some ancient ethnocentric view that all OT books ought to have been written in Hebrew.

Secondly, the New KJV uses Lutheran translations, which are totally inappropriate. Did you know that if Luther would have had his way, there would be seven and possibly eight fewer books in the New Testament? That's right, Luther wanted to rid the Canon of all books written by John, including Revelations and the Gospel. He also wanted to destroy the Books of Hebrews, James and Romans.

Imgaine how much less of The Word we would have if those crazy Protestants woulda had their way!

The KJV is inadequate because it does not include such necessary books as Maccabees, and because it is an inauthentic translation, not true to what was in fact said in those ancient texts.

Sincerely,

Sie Geistesswiesenschaften
(have fun translating that one!)

P.S. I'd highly recommend taking a course in Hermeneutics.

And don't forget - [b][i]Catholicism is the Original Bible Church!! Why? Because we wrote it!!!![/i] [/b][/quote]

Beacause we wrote it

Tell me is there a numeric and scriptural code in the catholic bilbe like there is in the KJV.?

The apocraphy is ommitted because it is not inspired writing,its simple.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Hi my friend, good to see you reply.

[quote]In most languages I would agree. I did not know you are a Copt, but I do know that Coptic is the descendant of the Egyptian language and is most closely related to demotic. [/quote]Copt is kinda like Egyptian Hyrogliphix written in greek charectors [kinda]. Here's an image to display it [thou I'm not fluent in Copt or nothing. Most Copts dont know it, thou we sing our liturgy in it, have translations, get to see it, etc].

[img]http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00005/85/39/5989358_l.gif[/img]

[quote]and I don't study the Late Period.[/quote] Oh really? I think, as an archiologist and Egyptologist, you might mind it quite interesting and informative. There's a Mountain [that's not got a church on it] that God moved [which resulted in it being split horizontally and vertically in the form of a cross], that's got alot of ancient culture on it that you might enjoy.

[quote]Oh, and modern Hebrew doesn't write the vowels, either.[/quote]Right but the modern Hebrew is very very very different then the ancient, which is why the scholars mentioned having an enormously difficult time translating it.

[quote]which is what most scholars now use and what most translators use for the Bible (in addition to the Septuagint).[/quote] I definately wouldn't agree with this verse, the KJV, among the vast others translate from the Septuigent.

Reza

[Urib2007]

How does God Almighty communicate with His people? How does God teach His creation about how the world began? How does God teach His people His laws? I can only think of one way and that way is through the BIBLE.

God is not going to abandon His Word and He's not going to have translations interfere with His message, although many of the newer versions have been corrupted. I believe God gave His final authority on the Authorized King James Version Bible.

Do you honestly think God would cause all of this confusion regarding which Bible to read? I know God is not the author of confusion. It's just another deception from satan.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]I can only think of one way and that way is through the BIBLE. [/quote]Really? Since you're saying that the Bible is the cornerstone, then are you saying that before it's compilation and before it was written, God wasn't able to communicate with us? I believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the Cornerstone but I guess we disagree.

[quote]God is not going to abandon His Word[/quote] Oh I definately agree, but a key point is what is "His Word". You seem to believe in Sola Scripturas which dictates that the Bible alone is His Word but I wouldn'agree with that. Have you read 2 Thess 2:15 and the last chapter of John, where it says " 25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Now if just what Jesus did on earth couldn't be contained in the whole world if written down, how do you suppose that his truth can be contained in a single book?

I'd also like to point out that before the Bible was written and compiled, people communicated with God through the church [his one and only bride] and through the Sacraments like the Eucharist.

[quote]I believe God gave His final authority on the Authorized King James Version Bible[/quote]What is this based upon? "His Final Authority" is pretty serious words to use, I hope you have some basis for believing this.

[quote]Do you honestly think God would cause all of this confusion regarding which Bible to read? I know God is not the author of confusion. It's just another deception from satan.[/quote] I would say that believing that every translation is the same [which Muslims use to justify their theory that the Bible is distorted through translation] would be Satan's deception more then ever. Keeping the children of God consumed with a false translation that's missing several key writings [like Wisdom] in order to not be reminded of God's truth and to keep them from searching beyond, possibly into the original Greek.

Reza

[Urib2007]

Do any of your other bible translations contain these awe-inspiring bible codes? The King James Code is prodigiously inspired by the Hand of God. His signature is written on every single page and His approval graces the KJV because of these bible codes that one can only see in the King James Version. Now if there are bible codes in the newer [b]English translations[/b], please feel free to inform me on this. Of what I know, the KJV is the only English bible with these magnificent codes. I'm only going to list a few descriptions of these Bible Codes. There's just too many to type out.

[size=2]"Let God be true and every man a liar." - Romans 3:4
[/size]

[color="#000080"][b][size=3]Scriptural Numbers in the King James Version
[/size][/b][/color]

[u][b]Number 6 -- the number for PREPARATION[/b][/u]

(Genesis [b]6[/b]:14) "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

(Genesis 7:[b]6[/b]) "And Noah was [b]six hundred[/b] years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth."

The number meanings are in the Genesis chapter. How does the number 6 deal with the theme of preparation? In Genesis Chapter 6, God took Noah and told him what was going to happen ahead of time and then caused him to prepare for what was going to occur. And then in Genesis Chapter 7:[b]6[/b], Noah was [b]600 years old[[/b] when the flood of the waters came upon the earth. Notice the pattern that the Bible is laying out for us.

"Days of Noah" mentioned [b]6[/b] times

(1 Peter 3:20) "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the [b]days of Noah[/b], while the ark was a preparing, where in few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

The Bible says, Jesus said as it was in the [b]days of Noah[/b], so shall it be the coming of the son of man.

(Exodus 16:5) "And it shall come to pass, that on the [b]sixth day[/b] they shall [b]prepare[/b] that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily."

God has ordained that we work [b]6 days[/b].

(Revelation [b]6[/b]:12) "And I beheld when he had opened the [b]sixth[/b] seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sack cloth of hair, and the moon became as blood."

(Joel 2:31) "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, [b]before[/b] the great and the terrible day of the Lord come."

So when the [b]sixth seal[/b] is opening, it is a preparation of the things that lie ahead, which is the great and terrible day of the Lord.

(Revelation 9:14-15) "Saying to the [b]sixth angel[/b] which had the trumpet, loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. (15) And the four angels were loosed, which were [b]prepared[/b] for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men."

Notice this in the [b]6th[/b] book of the Bible, which is the Book of Joshua:

* [b]6th[/b] book of the Bible - Joshua
* Joshua mentioned [b]216 (6x6x6) times[/b]
* Joshua has [b]24 (6x4)[/b] chapters
* Details the [b]preparation[/b] to enter the Promised Land, including a [b]6[/b] day march around Jericho.

* The word "prepare" mentioned in 78 ([b]6[/b]x13) verses of the Bible
* (Exodus 1[b]6[/b]:5) "And it shall come to pass, that on the [b]sixth day[/b] they shall [b]prepare[/b] that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily."
* Exodus [b]16[/b] is the [b]66th[/b] chapter of the Bible.

How many books are in our Bible? [b]66 books![/b]

[b][u]Days of Preparation[/u][/b]

*This phrase [b]"days of preparation"[/b] is used [b]6[/b] times in the Bible.
* (Luke 23:54) "And that day was the [b]preparation[/b], and the sabbath drew on."
* The phrase [b]"sixth day"[/b] is mentioned [b]6[/b] times in the King James Bible.

* (Ephesians [b]6:[/b]14-17) God has [b]prepared[/b] us for spritual warfare by these [b]six things.[/b]

MAN

* "Mankind" is mentioned [b]6 times[/b]
* "Man" is mentioned [b]6 times in Genesis 6[/b]
* The [b]6th commandment[/b] is "thou shalt not kill."
* "Behold the man" is mentioned exactly [b]6 times[/b] in the KJV
* (John 19:5) "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,[b] behold the man!"[/b]

(1 Timothy 3:1[b]6[/b]) characterizes Jesus in [b]6 ways.[/b]

1) God was manifest in the flesh, not an angel. Jesus was not a created being. He was God.
2) Justified in the spirit
3) Seen of angels
4) Preached unto the Gentiles
5) Believed on in the world
6) Received up into glory

And He says what? What he's gone to PREPARE a place for us.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1207217' date='Mar 3 2007, 10:03 AM']Beacause we wrote it

Tell me is there a numeric and scriptural code in the catholic bilbe like there is in the KJV.?

The apocraphy is ommitted because it is not inspired writing,its simple.[/quote]
Ah but the first KJV HAD THE Apocrapha in it . So if it was such an excellent translation, why?